JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

º

1610

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.))

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

º

1615

º

1620

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC)

Hon. Anne McLellan

º

1630

Mr. Peter MacKay

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. Peter MacKay

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Hon. Anne McLellan

º

1635

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. William Baker (Commissioner, Canadian Firearms Centre)

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. William Baker

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. William Baker

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

º

1640

Hon. Anne McLellan

Ms. Pauline Picard

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

º

1645

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. William Baker

º

1650

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. William Baker

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Mr. William Baker

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Anne McLellan

º

1655

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.)

Hon. Anne McLellan

»

1700

Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

»

1705

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

»

1710

Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)

The Chair

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Anne McLellan

»

1715

Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service)

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Ward Elcock

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Chair

Hon. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

Hon. Anne McLellan

»

1720

»

1725

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, CPC)

Hon. Anne McLellan

»

1730

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. Gary Loeppky (Acting Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.)

»

1735

Hon. Anne McLellan

Mr. Gary Loeppky

»

1740

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Sue Barnes

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard

»

1745

Hon. Anne McLellan

»

1750

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

The Chair

Ms. Paddy Torsney

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

Hon. Anne McLellan

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

---

NUMBER 002

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

    We are reviewing both the supplementary estimates for the year ending 2004 and the main estimates for the year ending 2005.

    Our witness today is the Minister of Justice, who is joined by Deputy Minister of Justice Margaret Bloodworth, and I can see that there are officials from a number of agencies, public servants representing those agencies, here today to assist us in this task.

    I apologize on behalf of the House for the 45-minute delay in the start of the meeting. There was a vote in the House that prevented all of the members and the minister from being here.

    So without further discussion, we'll move to the minister's remarks as we commence. Minister McLellan.

    Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    It is indeed my pleasure to be here today to discuss the priorities of the new portfolio of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

    As you've already mentioned, Mr. Chair, I have with me this afternoon the deputy minister, Margaret Bloodworth.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Minister, I know you haven't corrected me, as well you should have. I totally got the ministry and the minister wrong.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I know, but I overlooked that. I've had so many jobs....

    The Chair: I saw colleagues shuffling for the other estimates, it being a hat you once wore.

    Anyway, I'm sorry.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I used to be Minister of Justice, so I just felt right at home.

    The Chair: Why don't you correct me while you're opening, then? Do you want to correct me or do you want me to correct me?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, what I could do is indicate that both my deputy and I represent the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

    I also want to point out the representatives from my department who are with me today, some of whom will obviously be familiar to members of this committee and some perhaps not. They are Ward Elcock, who is of course the director of CSIS; Garry Loeppky, who is the acting commissioner of the RCMP; Alain Jolicoeur, president of our new Canada Border Services Agency; Bill Baker, commissioner of the Canada Firearms Centre; Lucie McClung, commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada; and Ian Glen, chairperson of the National Parole Board.

[Translation]

    Three months have elapsed since the creation of the portfolio and I think we have made enormous progress during that period. Canadian men and women can have the assurance that the current government under the leadership of Prime Minister Paul Martin takes his essential role consisting in assuring the public safety and protection very seriously.

    The reorganization begun last December 12 led to taking concrete measures in this regard; the main activities of the former Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, as well of the National Crime Prevention Center, were placed under the responsibility of a single minister.

[English]

    The integration of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protectionand Emergency Preparedness within the department better prepares us to coordinate with provincial and territorial partners and respond rapidly and effectively in the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or public emergency. This will require coordination with provincial and territorial partners. In some cases, we have co-located operations centres with the provinces and territories and are looking at the feasibility of further co-location.

    The Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, was also created within the portfolio as a focal point for intelligence sharing between immigration and law enforcement partners and will be responsible for detention and removals. The CBSA assumes all the customs responsibilities at the border and at points of entry and will take a leadership role in what continues to be a major priority, ensuring a smart border that is open for commerce but closed to terrorists and criminals.

    The pooling of resources and capabilities in the new portfolio means that we can operate more strategically and effectively to protect Canadians. The portfolio has an annual budget of nearly $5 billion and more than 55,000 employees working in every part of our country, from coast to coast to coast. Nearly half of these are members of our national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Other staff include correctional officers, parole officers, customs officers, and intelligence officers, as well as policy, operations, and program delivery personnel.

    Having all this expertise under one banner will allow for better integration across the public safety spectrum, linking front-end measures such as emergency preparedness, crime prevention, community policing, and border management with back-end interventions such as corrections and parole.

    Broadly speaking, our mandate has remained the same--that is, ensuring a just and safe society in which Canadians are protected from threats to personal safety, while ensuring the rights on which Canada's open society depends.

    When we think of public safety, we often think of threats that are close to home, such as property crimes or crimes against individuals, but the reality is that we must be prepared to counter a range of threats, from threats to national security that are directed at society as a whole, to naturally occurring events such as severe blizzards, floods, or forest fires.

    Our portfolio will play an even greater leadership role in public safety and security initiatives, both domestically and internationally. These initiatives reflect key themes such as the protection of children and vulnerable persons, safer communities for aboriginal peoples, a more effective criminal justice system, and enhanced emergency preparedness. Throughout all our initiatives, we recognize the need for greater transparency and accountability, as well as both domestic and international partnerships.

    Our work will also be guided by the creation of a new integrated policy for national security and emergencies, announced by the Prime Minister on December 12. Over the coming months, my department will be leading this initiative, which will set out Canada's national security interests and a blueprint for protecting Canadians against current and emerging threats.

    Also on December 12, the government established a new cabinet committee on security, public health, and emergencies, which I chair. This committee will serve to manage national security issues and coordinate government-wide responses to all emergencies.

    December's announcement also included the creation of a new national security committee of parliamentarians, which will play an important role in reviewing national security issues. We are now launching a process to develop the design and terms of reference for this committee. We are looking at models and best practices from around the world, notably the United States, the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. This process will take some time, but the goal is clear. We want to ensure that this committee plays a relevant and integral role in the review of Canada's national security activities.

    Canadians enjoy one of the safest societies in the world, and rates of crime are the lowest they have been in decades. Our success lies in close cooperation, particularly in the areas of crime prevention, law enforcement, the criminal justice system, and emergency management.

º  (1615)  

    We are striving to strengthen these extensive partnerships through a number of means. For example, we are promoting the philosophy of community policing by actively involving the community, enabling police agencies to develop the most effective crime-fighting strategies.

    We are working with other jurisdictions to address the root causes of crime by using social development strategies to guide crime prevention initiatives. For example, we have developed a multi-level partnership project with the City of Vancouver to reduce crime and victimization in the downtown east side. Through teamwork with residents, local solutions are being developed for local problems.

    We are pursuing criminal justice goals in a more integrated way by engaging provincial and territorial partners in new efforts to achieve a more effective and seamless criminal justice system. For example, we are looking to explore different approaches to dealing with crime, such as through restorative justice and drug treatment courts, which allow for the active involvement of victims, offenders, and communities in making society safer.

    We are also exploring ways to enhance cooperation with provinces and territories as well as other government departments on emergency management issues, recognizing that effective responses require a coordinated response.

    Throughout these initiatives and countless others, we will continue to engage the participation of communities, first responders, the voluntary and private sectors, provinces, territories, and our criminal justice partners. This will help ensure that federal programs and initiatives implemented at the local level remain responsive to the needs of Canada's diverse communities.

[Translation]

    I would like to say a few words on one of our biggest challenges, that is to say the use and the communication of information to further public security and national security as well as the balance to be found in light of concerns as to the protection of privacy. Our policies and our practices must respect standards that reflect Canadian values.

º  (1620)  

[English]

    This has been our approach, as many of you know, with the proposed Public Safety Act, now in its second reading in the Senate. As vital as this bill is to transportation and national security, we are ensuring that our response to security issues is appropriately balanced with fundamental interests such as privacy and civil rights. Various safeguards are being built into the legislation to increase transparency, accountability, and privacy protection.

    These same principles guide the integrated justice information initiative, spearheaded by a commitment in 1997 to integrate information systems of all partners in Canada's criminal justice system. The initiative aims to break down information stovepipes that previously existed between federal organizations by, for example, enabling better access to relevant information on criminals at the front line, while maintaining and, in some cases, increasing safeguards to protect personal information.

    Additional funding for the initiative was provided in the 2001 budget to enhance information sharing and improve public safety. The addition of the new public safety elements of this portfolio should enable us to enhance such exchanges where appropriate, bearing in mind privacy concerns.

    While we seek to use technology to promote safer communities, we must do our best to prevent criminals and terrorists from exploiting technology for their own ends. One example of this is the lawful access initiative, which involves the updating of legislation to provide for legal interception of new forms of communications by law enforcement and national security agencies. Modernized lawful access laws will make it much more difficult for criminals to cover their tracks when they use new and emerging technologies to facilitate their crimes, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians.

    Advances in technology and the globalization of crime have called for unprecedented levels of international cooperation and coordination to counter transnational crime. More than ever, Canada's well-being is affected by a sense of interdependence within our borders, continentally, and on a global basis. That is why we are working more closely with the international community, especially our neighbours to the south. We are not interested in merely maintaining the tradition of close collaboration with the United States on public safety and security issues; we are committed to strengthening it.

    Although our new public safety portfolio is not a mirror image of the more extensive U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the portfolio's expanded mandate will facilitate how we interact, both at the political level and throughout our administration.

    As some of you know, one of my first items of business was meeting with my U.S. counterparts in Washington in January. This provided an opportunity to discuss the tremendous progress on the Canada-U.S. Smart Border Declaration. In just over two years, many initiatives have been completed, or are in the final stages of implementation. For example, the NEXUS program for pre-approved movement of travellers is now operational at 10 border crossings, with another three sites confirmed for expansion. The free and secure trade program, otherwise known as FAST, is now functional at the 12 highest-volume commercial crossings, representing 80% of commercial traffic between Canada and the United States. Clearly, ensuring the secure and efficient flow of the $1.9 billion in daily trade across our border is much more than a public safety issue; it is also an economic imperative for both of our countries.

    We will keep building on the success of the declaration as we pursue a new, more sophisticated approach to our relationship. Wherever possible and appropriate, we will look at collaborating more closely with the United States, but obviously this must be done in a way that is consistent with privacy concerns, human rights, and Canadian laws.

    I have spoken about strengthening linkages, not only domestically but also internationally. Along the way, we will work on fine-tuning this new public safety department. We will continue to implement our anti-terrorism plan, enhancing law enforcement and security intelligence capacity, improving screening of immigrants and refugees and visitors, boosting emergency preparedness and response, and completing a series of measures with the United States to ensure an open and secure border.

º  (1625)  

    As part of a broad initiative to increase transparency and accountability, we are looking to establish a review mechanism for the RCMP's activities with respect to national security. In so doing, we must engage civil society and public safety issues to ensure Canadian core values are maintained in the new threat environment in which we live. We must build public confidence in our public safety and security systems and ensure they remain fair, progressive, and uniquely Canadian. By working together, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I believe we will ensure that our physical and economic security are stronger than ever.

    Mr. Chair, I would now be pleased to take your questions, comments, suggestions—whatever one might have.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you to the honourable Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

    Now we'll lead off with seven-minute rounds, first going to the official opposition. I understand the official opposition will split their seven-minute round between Mr. MacKay and Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. MacKay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Minister, for having come here today.

[English]

    We're very pleased to have you here. I want to congratulate you and the government for recognizing the need for this new portfolio. This is something that was explored ten years ago by the previous Conservative government and adamantly opposed at that time. We recognize the need for bringing this portfolio about, and my colleagues here today, including the Right Honourable Joe Clark, will obviously recall that time.

    My first question, Madam Minister, is with respect to the RCMP and the politicization of the RCMP. It's become a travesty, in my opinion, given some of the cases that have been brought to light in the past number of years going back to the Airbus case, the more recent cases that flowed from APEC, the investigations involving François Beaudoin and the Shawinigan case, the debacle that was exposed by a Quebec superior court judge. There are still outstanding questions from the Airbus case involving whether a now-disgraced journalist, Stevie Cameron, was in fact an RCMP informant in that case. Perhaps the minister might confirm whether that is in fact the case.

    I've been hearing a lot that the RCMP have been losing their lustre, losing their objectivity, losing their ability to be truly at arm's length from the government. This is of real concern: that they are in fact being selective or being undermined in their ability to investigate.

    I want to know what you specifically and your department are doing to address this undermining of public confidence that has occurred as a result of these cases I've mentioned and others, including the Arar case, where I know there is a public inquiry under way and you can't comment specifically on that case. I would like to know specifically about these concerns, which I've heard expressed repeatedly by members of the public, and certainly by those in the journalistic community, over what I can describe in no other way than as a politicization of our national police force.

    I also want to know about the setting up of this new committee you referred to, Minister. The setting up of this new committee, just so that we're all clear, is being done in a way whereby there is a subcommittee being set up to study what the new committee will consist of. It probably won't happen until the next sitting of the House of Commons after an election—that's the timing in which it looks as though it's going to unfold. Is that correct?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

    Let me say—and I in no way, Mr. Chair, intend to be frivolous—my colleague Mr. MacKay is, if nothing else, absolutely consistent in that for as long as I've been appearing before committees relating to justice and law enforcement issues, Mr. MacKay, I think on every occasion, has referred to the situation around Airbus, and my answer hasn't changed in relation to that over these years.

    But more seriously, let me say I profoundly disagree with the premise of the honourable member's question, which is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, this country's national police force, is being politicized. He hasn't indicated by whom he thinks it's being politicized, but if he thinks it's being politicized by this government or any of the provincial governments where the RCMP do policing under contract, I categorically reject that assertion.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm referring to the Liberal federal government, to be clear.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I reject out of hand the premise of the question.

    This police force has the confidence.... When you talk about Canadians losing confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I would ask you to check your facts. In fact, everything I have seen, including recent polls, indicates that Canadians have overwhelming confidence in their national police force to carry out its activities.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: What do you say about these cases I've referred to?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: You were talking about the question of lack of confidence.

    Mr. Chair, I want to respond to that. He asserted that Canadians are losing confidence in their national police force. I reject that. Everything I have seen suggests to me that what he has asserted is not the view shared by the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Dare I suggest, Mr. Chair, that any of us should be so lucky as to have the degree of public confidence in us that the public expresses in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    That turns the three-and-a-half-minute round into a five-minute round, but that's all right; questions were asked, answers given.

    I would just ask Mr. Breitkreuz, if he could, to try to keep his questions to two minutes. That would allow the minister a minute and a half or so. Is that fair enough? Thank you.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): I will do my best, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Madam Minister, for appearing before the committee.

    I too will be consistent in my questioning. The facts and the information I will relate to you come from over 430 access to information requests I put in to the Department of Justice. It appears there has been a concerted effort to cover up the information on the firearms file, which is the file I want to refer to.

    It's a file that you of course are very familiar with. Most of the money spent under that firearms program was while you were the minister in charge.

    The cost overruns, according to the Auditor General, have been on the order of about 500 times over budget. One of the things she complained about most vociferously—and it was really the essence of what she reported to Parliament about a year ago—is that Parliament has been kept in the dark as to the costs.

    She went on to relate information on some of the areas and left the rest open as to those areas that have not been tabulated as costs of the Firearms Act: areas such as enforcement costs, compliance costs, and now we have lately the privatization costs being on the order of $371 million, according to the government's own numbers; the economic costs have been a cabinet secret; the cost-benefit analysis has never been revealed—that also has never been given to us, but is supposed to be a cabinet secret—the indirect costs to many other departments. Because I don't have much time, I can't go on.

    There are also a few hundred thousand gun owners out there who do not have a firearms licence. There are over 400,000 who have a licence and still haven't registered a gun. There are over 300,000 handgun owners who haven't re-registered. The list goes on and on.

    Madam Minister, the question I have is, what are the total costs of the gun registry? How much is it going to still cost to fully implement? How much is it going to cost to maintain?

    I have asked that question over 18 times publicly to a minister. I have not gotten an answer. Are you prepared today to give us an answer?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz. I applaud you for the consistency you have shown in the pursuit of this file.

    As of March 31, 2003, the full cost for the program was $814 million, as reported in the 2002-03 Department of Justice departmental performance report. The total projected expenditure for the program in 2003-04, which will end March 31, is approximately $133 million. This amount represents $116 million for the Canada Firearms Centre and an estimated $17 million identified for our other federal partners, which I think you would describe as “indirect costs” in relation to your question.

    The $814 million includes the information technology costs and the reimbursements to the provinces and federal partners, such as the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. This total also includes all--and I underscore “all”--of the supplementary estimates that were approved by Parliament.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But it doesn't include all the other things that the Auditor General tagged as costs that should have been tabulated when telling Canadians what the cost of the firearms program was--for example, the enforcement costs.

    According to the Library of Parliament, it is probably going to be $1 billion. The compliance costs could be anywhere from $367 million to $764 million. None of that has been included, and the economic costs to our economy, all of those things. And why can we not get the cost-benefit analysis if this is such a valuable program?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I want to understand exactly what you are referring to when you talk about the enforcement costs. As I understand it, Mr. Baker, some of the reimbursements to the provinces and federal partners, such as the RCMP and the border service, are enforcement costs.

    Do you want to comment to clarify that for my colleague?

    Mr. William Baker (Commissioner, Canadian Firearms Centre): Mr. Chair, in the reporting to Parliament we do include enforcement costs, certainly related to transfers to the RCMP, anything that would happen downstream in terms of sentencing or conditional discharge relating to a firearms-related offence. That is included and was reported in the latest report to Parliament, which would have been the last justice departmental performance report that was tabled in the fall.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Let me make this clear so that Mr. Breitkreuz and I understand.

    The $814 million, up to March 31, 2003, would have included the enforcement costs that Mr. Breitkreuz has referred to.

    Mr. William Baker: That amount would include all of the amounts in federal expenditures in support of the Canadian firearms program.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That doesn't necessarily include all the costs.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: It includes our costs, and two provincial partners. In fact, on their enforcement side, we provide the provinces with funds. So one presumes that this covers....

    They are very vigilant, as you know, Mr. Breitkreuz, about making sure we understand, in this area and others, what their actual program costs are.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It doesn't include the... [Inaudible—Editor]... cost. Your estimates don't include that cost.

    Mr. William Baker: They do not include costs, for instance, associated with--I think this is what you are referring to, sir--policing costs, and so on, incurred by municipal or provincial forces in administering the Criminal Code, and so on. No.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, at some point I have to put an end to the conversation, because we are double the three and a half minutes of time here. But you can come back to this later if you wish.

    Did we complete the answer?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Yes, for the time being, but Mr. Breitkreuz might like to return to this.

    The Chair: That's fine. I'm sure we're all interested.

[Translation]

    Ms. Picard, you have seven minutes.

    Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good afternoon, Minister. When this new department was created in December, I believe you had discussed creating a super standing committee that would be in touch with cabinet and the opposition parties.

    Have you abandoned the idea of creating this super committee? If not, when do you think it will be created? Will it be before the elections, or after?

    I have another question that concerns vote 55b under Solicitor General. This is the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. There is an increase in funds that seems quite large to me. And the explanation said that these additional funds were for personnel, in order to deal with the increased workload and to give effect to the recommendations of the Auditor General.

    I cannot quite recall the recommendations in that report. Could you discuss these recommendations of the Auditor General, the ones contained in that report, at least?

º  (1640)  

[English]

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Merci, madame.

    Let me first respond to the question around the committees. Mr. MacKay, I think this also responds to part of your question, which I didn't get to.

    We need to clarify the two committees, Mr. Chair.

    Yes, there is a new cabinet committee made up of my cabinet colleagues, a standing committee of cabinet, that I chair and that deals with public safety, security, and emergency preparedness. That committee brings together the ministries that would have a direct involvement with safety, security, or emergency preparedness. So there you have the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Immigration, and the Minister of Transport, and Minister of State Guarnieri and others sit on that committee. We deal with the broadest spectrum of safety, security, and emergency preparedness issues. The Prime Minister created that as a new committee of cabinet on December 12.

    Then there's another committee that I think is going to be absolutely key to us as parliamentarians, to all of us on all sides of the House, in terms of reassuring Canadians that we take their safety and security seriously in a non-partisan way. This new committee has not been formed yet. In fact, we're going to issue a consultation paper and we have been in discussions on this. I have contacted the government House leaders in the House and the Senate, and they in turn have talked to the House leaders of the opposition parties, and in the Senate as well. I believe we are looking for an agreement that at this stage there would be a joint committee of the House and the Senate made up of all parties. The consultation paper that I'm going to make public will go to that committee. They can do with it what they want, but it will provide background for them to begin their work.

    What I want is not to impose a model in relation to this new all-party committee, but to have parliamentarians themselves look at the different models. The U.K. has a legislative model. If you look at the United States Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, they use standing committees; they have no separate legislation, as I understand it, to create a special public safety or security committee.

    We have said that we would like to swear in the members of this committee as privy councillors so they can have access to information that would not otherwise be available. This will be a cultural change for our parliamentarians in that if this committee is to work, it cannot be partisan. One is dealing with the safety and security of Canadians, and the people who serve on this committee will come into possession of some of the most sensitive information relevant both to the safety and security of Canadians and of our neighbours and allies around the world.

    That's why we have a consultation paper in terms of the different models, and we would like to hear from parliamentarians as to what they think would work in our country at this time. What kind of committee would they like to see? Do you want the members sworn in as privy councillors? Do you want a legislative base for the committee? How many members, even, should the committee have? Should each party in the House and in the Senate look to members of particular seniority or experience, or whatever the case may be? Those are things I want the advice of parliamentarians on before making a recommendation to go further.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: And what about my question on vote 55b?

[English]

    Hon. Anne McLellan: This was the Public Complaints Commission in relation to the RCMP and why in vote 55 their budget has increased. I presume it is because there was a recommendation made that they needed more resources to be able to deal with the volume of complaints and to deal with them in a thorough way. But maybe my deputy has more information.

    Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth (Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness): That's correct, Minister.

    It originated from the Public Complaints Commission itself, which identified certain workload issues associated with its ongoing work. They discussed that in concert with the department, but probably more significantly with Treasury Board officials. There was agreement that yes, they did need some increased resources, which was the end result of that.

º  (1645)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: The amount is almost $437,000. Is that really only for staff?

[English]

    Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth: It's primarily for staff. There would almost certainly be some operations and maintenance, for example, like travel and office equipment and so on, but it's primarily staff. Most of their expenses are staff related.

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: And what is that increase in the number of complaints due to, that would allow them to justify a personnel increase?

[English]

    Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth: Their experience in dealing with the number of complaints they have, and over time they have found some more complex. The agreement was that yes, they did warrant some further increase in resources.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Madame, this, of course, is an oversight mechanism for the RCMP in its traditional policing role. And the commission does receive a significant number of complaints.

    I think the Auditor General has expressed concern about the timeliness, because, of course, when a complaint is made one of the things one wants to ensure is that yes, it's dealt with in a thorough way, but that it's also dealt with in a timely way. Therefore, I think the Auditor General, among others, felt that this Public Complaints Commission needed to be sufficiently resourced to meet the needs of the public and to ensure that the Public Complaints Commission continued to have the confidence of the Canadian public in carrying out its oversight function.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to the NDP, with Mr. Nystrom, for seven minutes.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I welcome the minister here in a new portfolio and with new responsibilities.

    I want to go back to the gun registry and have you tell us a bit more about the cost of the privatization and contracting out for the software and other activities in terms of the registry. How much money has been spent and why is it so expensive, and what's anticipated in the days and weeks ahead?

    Minister, is there any evidence yet that the gun registry is working in terms of deterring crime?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Let me deal with the last point first, and then Mr. Baker can respond to your specific questions around the cost of the IT system and the challenges that are well known in relation to that IT system.

    In fact, people have to go back, I think, to first principles. I think what Canadians wanted to achieve with our gun control initiative and policy was to create a culture of safety and responsibility around the ownership and use of guns, and I think it's fair to say that through a number of initiatives, whether it's safe storage, whether it's our safety programs in terms of the standards and the uniformity in relation to those safety initiative programs that everyone goes through to get a licence, there's no question that the general level of consciousness around gun safety has increased markedly.

    Can I tell you that because, for example, of that increased commitment to safety, and when you apply for a licence a safety course has to be taken...? People are informed about safe storage. I come from a province where, tragically, almost I think every year there are children who die because someone hasn't stored a gun properly or they have not stored the gun and the ammunition separately, as required.

    But I think, as a general statement, the level of commitment to safety has increased. The level of consciousness in our society around the harm that guns can do if we do not have a culture of responsibility, I think, has increased markedly. I actually believe that this culture of responsibility and safety around ownership and use is one of the hallmarks of our Canadian society.

    Mr. William Baker: I'd like to add some numbers to what the minister had to say.

    First of all, we continue to experience very good records of public compliance with the Firearms Act. We're now approaching two million gun owners who have obtained licences in the country, and that continues to grow. In fact, we've issued 75,000 licences since the summer. We're approaching seven million firearms that are registered in the system, and we estimate that there are approximately 7.9 million firearms out there. There are some people who are using guns that aren't licensed, and there are some firearms that are not registered in the system. But at this point we're looking at licensing and registration in the area of 93% and 86% levels of compliance based on our best estimates of gun users and gun availability in the country.

    In terms of the effectiveness of the program, the program is designed to prevent tragedies by ensuring safe storage, ensuring that people have the proper training to operate a firearm, etc. There are a couple of statistics that I do think are relevant to the committee's deliberations. One would be that since the inception of the licensing program, 12,000 licences have been refused or revoked for public safety reasons by firearms officers across the country. This could be based on a criminal check or on some intervention by, say, the owner's spouse or someone else suggesting that there's a risk factor--

º  (1650)  

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I was asking about the contracting-out cost.

    Mr. William Baker: On the contracting-out cost, the IT component of the firearms program has been a significant part of our budget. In the current year it would represent around 45% or so of our overall costs for the program. That is in a transition period. We're currently in the process of operating an old system that was introduced following the passage of the legislation in 1995, and in July 2001 a contract was let to build a new system. We're in that period when we're operating a current system as well as developing a new one. So our costs are higher than they would normally be once we are able to transition to a single system.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: What are the costs?

    Mr. William Baker: We're looking at approximately $40 million in total IT costs for 2003-04, and we will be looking at a similar figure going into next year in order to finish the development work and testing. Of course, this system, commonly referred to as the Canadian firearms registration system, is in fact the system that supports licensing as well as registration.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I have another question for the minister. In the press the other day there was a story about the corrections commissioner spending a fair amount of money on travel to Hong Kong, Barbados, Brazil, and Hawaii. I wonder if you can elaborate on these travels. What value did the taxpayer get for those travels? Have you had a chance to investigate whether or not this was money well spent? Are you satisfied with the results that were reported to you by the commissioner?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: First of all, let me say that all the expenses were within Treasury Board guidelines. But having said that, I expect--on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada--that even within those guidelines people act responsibly and reasonably in terms of expenditures they undertake in carrying out their duties as public servants.

    On the commissioner's travels, I think it is fair to say that our corrections system in this country is viewed as a model. God knows--and some of you around this table have talked to me about this in other situations--it is not perfect by any means, but it is viewed as something of a model. Consequently, this commissioner, as well as previous commissioners, have been asked to go to other countries to talk about our corrections system and participate in workshops, panels, and what have you, to help those who want to create new systems or modify existing systems.

    As an example of the kind of work we do in this country, the commissioner was asked by the Chinese government to assist in establishing their human resources agenda for corrections. The commissioner also met with the Hong Kong commissioner. She attended an international conference on offender rehabilitation.

    It's a huge issue for us globally. We know that these people, in almost all cases, are going to leave the prisons in which they're housed, and how do you rehabilitate them so they are not a risk to the public upon release? It's a challenge for us. Again, we've talked about this around this table. She was indeed a keynote speaker and panellist at that particular conference.

    Those are some examples of the kinds of places and events that both this commissioner and previous commissioners have been invited to go to and participate in to help others learn from our system--both its strengths and, dare I say, its weaknesses.

    So I think this has to be put in context. The travel expenses that appeared in the paper covered a 38-month period, so that was over three years. That's something you have to keep in mind as well. But I come back to the point that public servants--even within Treasury Board guidelines--must act reasonably and responsibly in making decisions about where they travel, when they travel, and how they travel. I believe in that profoundly.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: That concludes the round. Thank you.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Has it been seven minutes already?

    The Chair: Yes. It's been nine minutes and 36 seconds. It was a fulsome answer.

    We're pleased to have a former Solicitor General with us on the government side today. He's going to share the next seven-minute round with Ms. Torsney. We'll let Mr. MacAulay lead off. We have a former Prime Minister with us as well, who I intend to recognize later for some informed questioning.

    Mr. MacAulay.

    Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I don't know if it's an asset or a detriment to be a former Solicitor General, but it's certainly an interesting task. I will agree that you do have a number of challenges, but I would also agree that you have an excellent group of people to serve you. I had the privilege of dealing with a number of them for four years, and it was indeed a privilege.

    I also believe that the cabinet committee on emergency preparedness is certainly very important, and it'll be interesting when we put the committee of the House of Commons and the Senate in place also. To make them privy councillors would be something I could see as a major asset, because then they would be able to have access to information that normally they would not be able to have access to. The only unfortunate thing is that they wouldn't be able to use it politically, but obviously this would never be a politicized committee. I say that in total earnestness, because this is so vitally important.

    There are a number of things I am of course interested in with this department, but I just have a question on the chemical and biological concerns we have. I think it's an endless situation. How far do you go? What do you do? How many wash-down clinics do you put in place? What do you do? When these things happen, it's something like before 9/11. I think there are dollars spent that never could have been justified before that, but unfortunately afterwards we want to do even more. I'm just wondering where we are in this situation, because it's certainly been indicated that's where the problem can be, in the chemical and biological area. They can cause so much trouble with so little equipment. In fact, where are we? I know you're dealing with the provinces and territories and communities and everything else in order to coordinate our efforts, but in fact, where are you in this situation?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Mr. MacAulay. I thank you for the question and for your ongoing interest in areas around public safety and the security of Canadians.

    You're absolutely right that we are in the process. You were well involved in this. We're in the process of developing a national chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear strategy. This took on an increased relevance and urgency after September 11 because the nature of terrorism became more obvious at least. It may have also changed profoundly on that day, but it became more obvious to those of us who live in this country. Therefore, it became imperative for us to ensure that we had the infrastructure in place.

    We are extending the resources and training of first responders necessary on a wide range of fronts, including the development of this national strategy around chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. We are working with the provinces and the territories. As you know, OCIPEP left DND and is now part of my department, and they are working with other parts of my department and with the provinces and the territories in the development of this national strategy.

    The other thing I will say--and you will remember, Mr. MacAulay--is that in the budget of December 2001, I think it was, we in fact allocated something like $250 million to fund a new and enhanced CBRN programming initiative, and that work is continuing. Let me say that the degree of coordination, the degree of cooperation from the provinces, territories, and local communities--because this is where your first responders are, in local communities all over this country, if one of these events happens--has been outstanding. In fact, through the $250 million we've been able to fund various initiatives at the local level, training and other things.

    I would be not truthful if I didn't say there are challenges, for of course there have been challenges. But we continue to work, I think, in an effective way with our partners in relation to the development of this strategy. It's about prevention and it's then about response. In being able to respond, you clearly have to be prepared, and there has to be a level of ongoing preparedness that obviously one hopes we never have to use. But it has to be there, and people have to be there and ready to respond, trained to the level one would expect if one of these events happened.

    Margaret, do you want to add anything to that?

»  (1700)  

    Mrs. Margaret Bloodworth: I would just add perhaps a couple of details.

    On the training, there has been a four-level training package developed. There's an introduction for those who, as the first responder, just have to be able to recognize something--not respond to it or do anything, but recognize that it's dangerous to us, There's basic, intermediate, and advanced. The advanced is offered at Suffield in Alberta. It's for people who actually have to manage it.

    All the programs have been developed and paid for at the federal level--the development's been there. The introduction is delivered by the provinces and the municipalities. The other three levels are delivered by the federal government. We have also funded some equipment at various local levels, cost-shared that with the provinces.

    As the minister said, I think we would be misleading if we suggested everything that needs to be done has been done, but there has been a huge increase in the capacity to respond since 2001, and that effort continues.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    A balance of round to Ms. Torsney.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Thank you. I'll be taking the Nystrom plan.

    First of all, I have a question for you, Mr. Baker.

    I'm pleased to hear about the 12,000 licences that have been denied or revoked. Of course we'll never actually know the cost of not having an incident occur as a result of those individuals having a firearm in their possession, no more than we know the cost of not having accidents on our coast because a lighthouse was there to stop a ship from hitting the coast.

    Specifically on the border, Minister, to you, you know that $1.9 million that trades across our border is very important to my constituents, particularly those who work in many of the exporting businesses. And we are very close to the border. So I applaud you for the initiatives to get the border working on an efficient basis in terms of the exchange of goods. But I'm also concerned about how the border can effectively enhance our security, particularly with children being spirited across our borders.

    Also, you know there was an incident recently where a Buffalo police officer was involved in a car chase of an individual who apparently had broken the law, and ended up killing a Canadian. Obviously that's under investigation and you're not going to be able to answer specifically, but what is the plan to make sure that on those borders, particularly where there are very large populations--in Niagara-Buffalo, in Windsor-Detroit, in the Surrey area of B.C.--where you do have very vibrant police forces working to pursue criminals, we don't now create a situation where everyone heads for the border and people on both sides are injured? I know there are some cross-border crime initiatives, but have the local police forces developed better coordination so we can protect each other?

»  (1705)  

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you.

    In the situation you refer to that tragically involved the death of a Canadian at the border, the U.S. police were in pursuit. It was a car chase, I gather. I think that much is well known. I believe they radioed ahead, although at this point it's difficult to comment on the specifics. There is a requirement that law enforcement officers crossing the border into our country, for whatever purpose, have to stop at the border and indicate that, for example, they are in hot pursuit. Then a decision is made, and very likely Canadian police take up the pursuit at that time.

    These issues are important ones in terms of how we work together in a seamless fashion. Obviously one wants to make sure the border is not a barrier in dealing with criminals and catching criminals. You also need to make sure that sovereignty is respected and the safety of individuals on both sides of the border is respected.

    So there is an investigation into this case. I am sure that at its conclusion we'll have a much better sense of what happened, why it happened, and how we can work together better in the future to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen. My deputy is just reminding me that my colleague Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has sent a diplomatic note to the United States to indicate our concern in relation to this particular incident.

    Generally, we're working very well with our American counterparts. In my case that is Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft. We share a commitment to ensure that we are providing a high level of safety and security for both Canadians and Americans. We share a large and long land border, and it's in everybody's interest--both their safety and security interest and their economic interest--that the border is managed well and, wherever possible, sovereignty is respected in a seamless fashion. That's what we're trying to do.

    That's what Smart Border was about, which was negotiated by Secretary Ridge and my former colleague John Manley. That's what the next Smart Border will be about when we negotiate the next tranche of our border initiatives.

    One has to be ever mindful that the border is not only the land border. That's what we think of, right? We think of Windsor-Detroit. We think of trucks and cars and people going back and forth. The border is also the ports and the airports. We also have to think about pushing the borders offshore, because at the end of the day prevention is key. You don't want another September 11.

    Therefore, where reasonable and appropriate, while working with our allies, we have to push those borders offshore. That's what we're doing in the targeting of high-risk container traffic before it leaves a port, say in western Europe. We want to be able to target high-risk traffic and keep it off our shores if that's the appropriate response to the risk assessment.

    So the border means many things. It's not just the land border, although it is absolutely key to the safety and security of Canadians and Americans.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll now move to three-minute rounds. I'm not sure if everyone has been satisfied by the first round. We can come back.

    Ms. Barnes.

»  (1710)  

    Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): I'm wondering how many rounds they got. We're on the list here?

    The Chair: We're now going to three-minute rounds, and we'll alternate for that purpose. Mr. Cadman has deferred to Mr. Clark. So I'll give three minutes to Mr. Clark, then I'll recognize Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Cadman, and Mr. Lanctôt.

    These are three-minute rounds, so if the questioning goes much more than a minute and a half, we won't be where we want to be.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    I welcome the minister and her officials.

    I should say to the committee that being a parliamentarian who is a privy councillor does not materially improve your access to confidential information--

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Hear, hear! I agree.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: —particularly on intelligence matters, which is what I wanted to raise.

    The minister has talked about strengthening linkages. I'm very much interested in strengthening the linkages between what is being done in Canada's name in intelligence activities and this Parliament. She will know that this is a period in which there have been material miscalculations and controversy about intelligence matters in the world. That has resulted in public and parliamentary inquiries in the U.S., Australia, and the U.K., but not in Canada.

    The status quo was sufficiently weak that the Prime Minister and the government have established a new officer, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister. I happen to know Mr. Wright. He's an experienced and respected public servant. My questions are not about the man but about the role. His appointment has now been referred to a committee, I presume this one.

    I want to make the point that the intelligence structures within the government have already been changed dramatically. Under the minister's plans, Parliament's role with regard to intelligence will not change in this Parliament, not until the fall at all. This is a critical time for Parliament to be shut out of those opportunities.

    I'd like to know whether the national security adviser reports to you. If not, what is his relationship to you? The Senate committee listed some 10 organizations involved in security matters, including DND and the RCMP, a long list. Do the heads of those organizations report to him directly, or do they report through the relevant deputy minister, commissioner, or director? When he comes for his hearings, would he bring an organizational chart that outlines quite precisely the relationship between his functions and those of other security and intelligent activities in the government? Could we have a description of the actual activities carried out by each of those 10?

    Finally, would the minister and the government be agreeable to this new national security adviser reporting not only in written form but also personally to a standing committee of the House on a regular basis?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Those are a lot of questions, and I think they are important questions. Mr. Elcock may want to respond to some of them in a general sense, as the representative of one of those intelligence-gathering agencies.

    The Prime Minister has appointed Mr. Wright as his national security adviser. But Mr. Wright also serves as my deputy minister with regard to issues of national security. He and my deputy, Margaret Bloodworth, work very closely together in terms of ensuring that all aspects of safety and security are covered that are appropriate within the mandate of this department. But Mr. Wright also reports directly to the Prime Minister of Canada. Mr. Wright briefs me regularly in relation to national security issues, as he does the Prime Minister.

    You're quite right that there are a number of agencies across government that collect and share information and work to ensure the security and safety of Canadians. They exchange information with our allies under appropriate protocols and agreements, and we receive a great deal of that information as well from our allies under protocols and agreements.

    I know that Mr. Wright was recently before a committee. Was it this one, Mr. Chair? No. Perhaps it was in the Senate. If and when he appears for whatever reason, whether it's in relation to his appointment or otherwise, certainly I see no reason he could not bring an organization chart and provide a description of his actual activities. This is the first time we've had a national security adviser report directly to the Prime Minister. It's the first time we've had a public security and safety department, where Mr. Wright functions as my deputy minister in relation to aspects of national security. So I think it might be quite useful for him to bring an organization chart that explains his relationship to everyone, including organizations such as Mr. Elcock's.

    Would you like to say anything about the way we work together to ensure that agencies collecting and sharing information are able to inform each other in a timely fashion and be aware of those who may be threats to the safety of Canadians?

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I can add a lot to the minister's comments. She's done a very thorough job of setting it all out, and I'm sure Mr. Wright will be able to explain or provide any other answers that members have.

    Certainly in terms of the relationship between Mr. Wright and CSIS, it doesn't change the nature of the accountability between me and the minister. Mr. Wright's role with respect to CSIS and the other parts of the intelligence community is, in a sense, as an adviser to the Prime Minister and an officer of the Privy Council Office, to ensure that the centre has a sense of what the intelligence community is doing and, indeed, to make sure that the community is greater than the sum of its parts. Obviously, as an officer of the Privy Council Office and an adviser to the Prime Minister, he has broad responsibilities to try to ensure that we all work together and that, indeed, the kind of sharing is going on between different institutions that will allow for greater security for Canadians.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Does he chair a committee of institution heads?

    Mr. Ward Elcock: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there has been a committee of institution heads for some years, and Mr. Wright now chairs that.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: So in effect, he is able to exercise at least an informal authority that, while it does not displace the formal authority of your reporting relationship to the new entity, nonetheless adds a new powerful and coordinating instrument to the internal organization of intelligence and security matters.

    Mr. Ward Elcock: I think that's correct, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We're back to Mr. Charbonneau, for three minutes.

[Translation]

    Hon. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to provide some further explanations, not only of the impact of changes in structures, but of the reasons behind these changes, the ones that provoked them.

    What is the rationale within government in this regard? We were told earlier that this matter was already being discussed 10 years ago, but that nothing had been done to follow through during those 10 years. So, what kind of debate, what king of reasoning is behind this series of changes that led to the creation of an enormous department: 55,000 employees, 5 billion dollars? Some believe that departments that are too large lose some of their effectiveness. Could you reconstruct for us the reasoning that led to the creation of this enormous department?

    And since you were Minister of Health, could you tell us how responsibilities are divided between your current department and the Department of Health with regard, for instance, to the risk of epidemics and other such things?

[English]

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Merci beaucoup.

    I think this is actually an important question in terms of why the Prime Minister decided to create this department as of December 12 in the way he did. Mr. MacKay alluded to the fact that there had been plans for some time, or at least discussions at various points in public life, to create a more integrated approach to issues around safety and security. However, Mr. Chair, I do want to make it absolutely plain that there is a fundamental difference between what Mr. MacKay, I think, alluded to, which was a plan developed by a previous government before 1993....

    I could be wrong and I stand to be corrected, but I do believe they were going to bring the entire Department of Citizenship and Immigration within that public...whatever they were going to call it. And this Prime Minister and this government have made a conscious decision not to do that. I have small parts of Citizenship and Immigration in relation to enforcement around deportation and removal, but the profoundly important policy around immigration and citizenship and the determination of who comes to this country and on what terms is under a separate department, one that will continue to be a separate department. That is a key difference, as I understand it, from what was being proposed that many years ago.

    In relation to this department, I think there's no question that after September 11 everybody became aware of the fact that we needed to have a sharper focus within the federal government. We needed a sharper focus on what we were doing in relation to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians and being able to prepare for and respond to emergencies, be they a flood, an ice storm, Hurricane Juan as we saw, the forest fires in the interior of British Columbia, or power outages. I think it became clear to the Prime Minister that Canadians had a higher expectation in relation to how their Government of Canada worked and operated in providing a higher degree of security and safety in this changed environment in which we live.

    So what was done was to take the core of the old solicitor general's department and add to it. We created a new border agency because in fact the border, however defined, is key to preventing things like terrorist attacks of whatever kind, be they chemical, biological, explosive, or whatever. And within that border agency you have other aspects now of issues surrounding safety and security. For example, we have inspectors from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency at the border in relation to things around health, whether animal health or issues involving food and other substances that people might attempt to bring across the border. So we have that.

    We have the enforcement part of the Department of Immigration as it relates to removals. The goal there in that one agency was to bring together all the key components of an approach to the border that spoke to both prevention and enforcement. But then as it related to the whole department, the desire was to bring these entities together, because they're all focused--and should be focused, highly focused--on the safety and security of Canadians, on being prepared to deal with an emergency situation.

    So the goal is a higher level of coordination, with integration where appropriate but not necessarily integration. CSIS remains an independent intelligence-gathering agency. The RCMP is independent in relation to its criminal investigations, obviously, as it has to be. So when I talk about integration, I don't mean that you take all these entities and integrate them in a way that would in any way damage or undermine their independent legislative authorities. But we are all focused on the same goal on behalf of Canadians. Therefore, Monsieur Charbonneau, the desire of the Prime Minister was to make sure we had all of these entities under one minister, so I am ultimately responsible in relation to these agencies and activities.

»  (1720)  

    I do believe we will see a higher degree of coordination and information sharing. It's started already, quite truthfully, since September 11. But I do believe the department will put a sharper focus on this and ensure we are able to work together in ways we haven't been able to, even in terms of doing things like creating a new physical infrastructure for an operations centre where we can bring everyone together in a way that has not been possible in the past.

    So this is about greater coordination, greater facilitation, and greater integration where appropriate, but only where appropriate, in relation to those key elements of safety and security of Canadians.

»  (1725)  

    The Chair: Mr. Cadman, for three minutes, and I'll look to Mr. Lanctôt after that.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, Minister, and thanks for appearing today. I want to go to an issue that's very dear to the hearts of many of my constituents, being from Surrey, and that's the marijuana grow operations and some of the issues surrounding them.

    Your predecessor, Mr. Easter, after some badgering from me in the House--and he admitted to this--finally did show up in Surrey for half a day to take a look around and get some briefings from the RCMP about the problems that were occurring with these surrounding marijuana grow ops. We've had a couple of reports in the past couple of years from the RCMP basically indicating that it's become epidemic across Canada--witness the Barrie bust, and then there was one in Toronto just on the weekend.

    In British Columbia we're seeing enormous amounts of B.C. bud crossing the border into the States and coming back in the form of guns and cocaine. Just in the past week we had an issue where a young teenager from Point Roberts, Washington, transported B.C. marijuana into the States on a school bus in a backpack. This all ties back to the grow ops.

    In Surrey, about a year ago, it was estimated that we were seeing revenues generated of about $2 billion a year out of some 3,500 to 4,500 grow ops in my city alone. It's a huge problem. It's wrecking neighbourhoods. At one point, the RCMP in Surrey were taking down in the area of one grow op a day. Basically what it was coming down to was resources.

    My constituents and I certainly haven't seen any real commitment on the part of the federal government to get serious about this. I'm sure you're concerned about it. But in terms of resources, I would like to know just what kinds of negotiations you have going on with the provinces, what your plans are. And perhaps we can hear from the RCMP themselves as to how things are coming along.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Let me just say a few things.

    I couldn't agree with you more. Illegal grow ops are becoming a scourge in this country. They are creating a host of problems--social problems, legal problems, economic problems. There's no question that organized crime is implicated in most--I won't say all, as that's not appropriate, but most--of the illegal grow operations that we see around the country. There's not a province as far as I can tell, Commissioner, that doesn't have this challenge. I know my city does, Edmonton. There have been some major busts of illegal grow ops recently where I live.

»  (1730)  

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I hope it was not at your address.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Not at my address, no. Thank you for clarifying the record in that regard, Madam Torsney.

    We have to develop a strategy to deal with this situation. It is exploding. It is becoming a question for allies, particularly the United States, but not only the United States, because of the money that's generated from these illegal grow ops and where it may in fact end up and what it may fund in other parts of the world.

    As part of the decriminalization legislation around the possession for personal use of small amounts of marijuana, there are provisions in that legislation that deal with increasing sentences for illegal grow ops and increased resources for the RCMP to deal with them. I don't know whether we have the exact amount--I'm going to turn it over to the expert here in a minute.

    But all of that is by way of introduction to say this is a big, big problem, and as a matter of law enforcement we have to get our minds around what we have to do to deal with this. It is largely about organized crime, so it fits into that larger piece, which as we know is also a challenge.

    Commissioner.

    Mr. Gary Loeppky (Acting Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I just want to reinforce some of the things the minister has said.

    Marijuana grow operations in Canada are not mom-and-pop operations; they are, by and large, run by organized crime groups, who use violence and fear in the community to continue their activity. Marijuana grow operations have a significant social, economic, and community safety impact and they are of significant concern to us. I agree that the Lower Mainland is an example where significant violence has been involved.

    We are undertaking a number of things. One of those is that the RCMP, in the most recent period of funding, was provided with funds to establish a number of marijuana grow operation teams to specifically target marijuana grow operations. We will be doing that, and there will obviously be a team in the Lower Mainland area of British Columbia.

    More importantly, we have identified a national marijuana grow coordination unit here in headquarters, which is really there to bring together the various components within the law enforcement community, or the appropriate level of expertise and appropriate commitment to do something about the problem. The national coordinating committee on organized crime has put together a very sophisticated and, in my view, very intelligent program to look at marijuana grow operations. It brings in the law enforcement community; which brings in health; which brings in the private sector; which brings in the public utilities that end up having millions of dollars of power stolen; and which brings in the insurance companies, who are paying out for houses that are absolutely ruined through a grow op. So a good integrated effort is being put forward through that national coordinating committee to really get serious about working together with the private sector and government and the RCMP—the various levels of government—to really be a lot more intelligent in terms of working together to do something about it.

    Finally, one component of the cross-border crime forum is that Canada, the RCMP, and the Drug Enforcement Administration from the U.S. are doing a joint threat assessment in terms of speaking to exactly the points you raised: what is the true picture in terms of the flow of drugs north and south? Despite the fact that there is a considerable amount of marijuana grown in Canada, we are also the recipients of some other types of illicit products. That threat assessment will be completed, and it will give us an accurate picture on which to base joint operations, which take place, I should point out, on a daily basis and have, in my view, been fairly successful—although they haven't necessarily targeted only marijuana grow operations.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I extend a personal invitation to the minister to come out to Surrey, because the grow busters would love to talk to you for a little bit.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I would be happy to do that.

    The Chair: Your social calendar is filling up quickly.

    Monsieur Lanctôt, for three minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, Lib.): What a privilege you are going to enjoy! Because if you come to visit Quebec, Madam Minister, you are going to see that the growing of marijuana crops is a scourge and an enormous problem in Quebec. If you come, I will certainly invite you to come on a little tour with us, because the scope of the problem is truly incredible. The two questions I want to put to you are related to that situation. I shall begin with the security perimeter.

    We know that there was a fear related to this after September 11. It was not just in the media. The impression we have is that all of the necessary efforts were made to create a smart border between the two countries, but that something which might be even more important has been allowed to fall by the wayside, i.e. the creation of a security perimeter for Canada, the United States and Mexico. So I would like you to update us on that, please.

    Are negotiations being held on this? Is the possibility still there to increase security with regard to terrorism, but also with regard to organized crime? If we had a comprehensive security perimeter for North America, including Mexico, we would probably also have fewer problems with organized crime.

    The problem we have in Quebec is that we have to assess organized crime once again. We enact laws, but is there a lack of resources? In Montreal itself, organized crime is on the increase. We are not controlling it. We are witnessing an increase not only with regard to marijuana, but all drugs, and organized crime is increasing along with that. Now we have the impression—as do our citizens—that there is a fear that organized crime is becoming increasingly sophisticated and that we are having trouble dealing with it and achieving our objectives. So what process are you going to adopt? And could the security perimeter help in this area?

»  (1735)  

[English]

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you very much.

    I think probably the language we use to describe the various things that are happening, both with ourselves and the United States and then more expansively with Mexico, is important. Let me say that, however you describe it, there is a great deal of work going on between Canada, the United States, and Mexico in relation to shared security issues.

    Having said that, obviously the situation between Canada and the United States is somewhat different from that between Mexico and the United States. There are some different issues there that are going to have to be worked out between those two countries. But wherever possible, I can assure you.... There is actually a trilateral--Mexico-Canada-U.S.--working group dealing with security issues, and I think there's a lot of shared challenge and experience in relation to those three countries that we can pursue together and we need to pursue together.

    In terms of organized crime, I have no doubt...well, the three countries work together now and they share information, but there is absolutely no question that organized crime, in today's world, is without borders. Organized crime uses technology more effectively, and they buy the best. As my former colleague the Solicitor General said--and that's Mr. MacAulay--organized crime does not have to go to Treasury Board to get authorization for new technological devices that help them launder their money and, with the press of a button, move millions and tens of millions of dollars from here to London, to Moscow, to Singapore, to wherever.

    So in fact, the whole question of, wherever possible, wherever it makes sense, from either a safety, security, or law enforcement side.... As long as we're respecting Canadian values and we're getting the balance right between issues like individual privacy and collective security, it makes sense for us to work with the United States, it makes sense for us to work with Mexico, and it makes sense for all three of us to work in a close trilateral relationship. But we must always acknowledge the fact that there are differences. Our relationship with the United States and its challenges are different from the relationship between the United States and Mexico and their challenges. However, there are many similarities. We share the same objectives, and wherever possible, we work together. Our law enforcement agencies work together and share information and do whatever they can to understand the sophistication of organized crime--how it operates. That's why things like our lawful intercept initiatives are so important. We know organized crime uses technology in ways that are really quite amazing in relation to pursuing their illegal activities, and we have to be as sophisticated as they are in terms of being able to intercept their communications. It puts enormous pressure on our resources. It puts enormous pressure on our law enforcement budget to be able to stay one step ahead of organized crime.

    I guess there are people, Commissioner, who would say we're not one step ahead of organized crime, that in fact it's a daily challenge to keep up with them and the new devices they have in relation to plying their illegal activities, which then fund a host of other illegal activities, not only here but around the world.

    Commissioner, do you want to add anything?

    Mr. Gary Loeppky: I just want to give an assurance that where we are today versus ten or even three years ago in terms of integrated policing, within the Canadian law enforcement community but, as importantly, beyond Canadian borders, has significantly improved. We are today at the point where within the Canadian law enforcement community, through Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, we are in fact setting common strategic priorities for enforcement in terms of organized crime. We are undertaking common tactical operations, and that's taking place through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

    So there is a very structured approach now to targeting those organized crime groups that pose the greatest threat to Canada, and to do that in an integrated way. As importantly, we're working internationally to establish common threats in terms of organized crime, including sitting at the G-8 table on organized crime--the G-8 Roma Group--to work internationally, because organized crime does not respect borders. It's so critical that we work internationally and share that information in terms of criminal intelligence, which is the lifeblood of successful investigations. That is what we have to do if we're going to be successful, and I'm convinced we're doing that better today than we ever have. We're working toward improvements, but we are making significant progress.

»  (1740)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, Mrs. Barnes did want to ask a question and Ms. Picard indicated she'd like to ask a question.

    With our having started about 40 minutes late, the minister has until now.... I've been advised that 5:45 p.m. was the deadline.

    Perhaps a single question without a preamble...?

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I will take the questions, if it's okay with you, from Madam Picard and Madam Barnes, and then perhaps we could end there.

    The Chair: And, colleagues, we have one business item to take up before we leave.

    Perhaps I could call this a bullet round, with a question without a long preamble, and I'll look to Mrs. Barnes and then Ms. Picard for those questions.

    Hon. Sue Barnes: Thank you very much, Minister, for coming today.

    As you know, the aboriginal population is overrepresented in our incarceration institutions in this country, and the aboriginal people who are in these institutions seem to spend a long time in them. It's appropriate that our country make sure that while they're in there they receive comparable help to what non-aboriginal people receive.

    I've had an opportunity to talk to some aboriginal communities, and they are raising with me the situation in which elders who go in with aboriginal medicines and healings are not treated in the same manner as perhaps a minister would be, or any other religious leader. It's not because Correctional Service Canada hasn't done a manual or doesn't have the protocol or doesn't have the understanding or the culturally relative material. I understand that in some institutions, but not all, the training is not being disseminated properly. People are being perhaps a little more lax than they could be.

    I'd like you to address this.

    I'll leave you with the other end of the spectrum, and that is the absolute need for more crime prevention dollars. Rather than spending just at the incarceration end, the real solution has to be at the front end, like anything else.

    A voice: Hear, hear!

    Hon. Sue Barnes:I just want to say how much communities are asking at the community level for the crime prevention dollar, and I'm getting that from aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal communities.

    Could you please address those very briefly?

    The Chair: Thank you for dispensing with the preamble. It wasn't the shortest.

    Would you care to put your question now, Ms. Picard?

[Translation]

    Ms. Pauline Picard: Madam Minister, I have a very technical question. According to what I understand, your objective is to create a department of the interior such as the one in France. Are you considering creating new structures to group the heads or agencies so that they can speak to each other at the highest level, for instance to facilitate discussions between ministers and deputy ministers?

    I expect that at this time, you are listening to a lot of briefings on the shape that this could take, but this is not necessarily in effect at this time. Will we have the opportunity of seeing an organization chart that would allow us to apprise ourselves of all of the entities, resources, activities and objectives of this department?

»  (1745)  

[English]

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I'll answer the questions in reverse order.

    We in fact have an organizational chart. What I will do, Mr. Chair, is provide it to the committee, and you can distribute it. You also asked about the resources. What we'll do on the chart, if you want and if this is what you're referring to, is provide by each agency—for example, CSIS or the RCMP—the annual appropriation for each of those entities, so you have it all right there.

    As for new structures, obviously the department itself is a new structure; the cabinet committee is a new structure; the fact that there's a national security adviser who now chairs that committee, although the committee itself was not new, as Mr. Alcock has mentioned.... I suppose in that sense there are new structures.

    But each of these entities.... The RCMP's structure has not changed. The Prime Minister has indicated there will be—and Mr. Justice O' Connor is helping us and will make some recommendations around this—additional civilian oversight of the RCMP as it relates to their activities in relation to national security. I suppose that's a structural change. But it's not a structural change in relation to the force itself. It will continue to do that which it is lawfully authorized to do under statute, be it the Criminal Code or other pieces of legislation.

    The same is true for an entity like CSIS. It has legislation. It acts, and will continue to act, within those statutory powers. But there's no structural change to CSIS because of this, except that these things are brought under a new department. They're not major structural changes, other than for the creation of the department itself and perhaps some new reporting mechanisms.

    Of course, the border agency is a new structure, isn't it? That is a structural change; it's a brand new agency bringing together different things.

    In relation to Madam Barnes' question, absolutely we know the aboriginal population is overrepresented in our federal penitentiaries. They are overrepresented everywhere. Whether it's in youth detention centres, in provincial jails, or in federal penitentiaries, they are overrepresented.

    I thank you for the good work you are doing. In fact, for your committee's purposes, Madam Barnes is actually going to work very closely with my department in relation to those correctional issues involving aboriginal people, because she has special responsibility for that in her role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I have asked that she work with us on the corrections side as it relates to aboriginal peoples as well.

    What we need to do is figure out why...and we know many of the answers, and you're right, it goes back to prevention. You have to look at what's happening in communities, whether it's on a reserve, whether it's urban aboriginals who live downtown in inner cities. We know poverty, a lack of education, violence, FA in the family—FAS, FAE—all these things contribute to the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our prison system. If in the long run we hope to deal with this, we have to deal with the underlying or root causes of crime and with what is happening in these people's lives and in their families.

    If in fact people do offend and are incarcerated, at least as it relates to the federal corrections system we have to ensure that we have rehabilitation programs for aboriginal peoples that make sense for them. You're absolutely right that people such as elders, when they go into the prisons, are an important part of both our men's and our women's prison systems for aboriginal peoples. They have to be treated with respect. The guards and others who run these institutions have to understand the role of elders, and it may be, in some respect, a little different from what they're used to.

»  (1750)  

    But that's why we have training manuals; that's why the culture has to change, and we have to work together to change that culture, because otherwise we will not succeed on the rehabilitation side. These people will leave these institutions and they will in many cases feel more alienated, more marginalized, and angrier than when they went in, and we will have created just another problem. From both ends, from prevention--how we deal with the root causes of crime in our aboriginal communities--through to incarceration and rehabilitation and return to society, there is a host of challenges that we are going to have to address.

    I would not pretend at this point that we have all the programming or all the resources we need to do that effectively. We've come a long way. We're doing better. But we have a lot more to do.

    The Chair: Ms. Torsney, did you have something you wanted to put to the colleagues here?

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I had asked the minister about children being spirited across the border. She didn't have a chance to answer. I thought my colleague was going to do it. If we don't have time now, she can send us a little note.

    The Chair: I take it you're opposed.

    Ms. Paddy Torsney: I don't think people should take children across the border, no.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: I would agree with Madam Torsney that this is an area that we have seen. It rears its ugly head in a couple of situations. One obviously involves families, families that are dysfunctional in the sense that after the separation or divorce, people are not able to accept the access and custody arrangements and somebody kidnaps the child. But in that case it's a mom or a dad or some family member. In other cases it's just a straight case of a total stranger in a mall stealing a baby or a small child and attempting to cross the border.

    Actually, this speaks again to the integration of our law enforcement efforts on both sides of the border and the fact that we're doing a much better job of sharing information, sharing that criminal intelligence to work together, even on things like the missing child campaigns, the fact that there is more information to get the picture of a kidnapped or missing child on the wire to every police force in the world literally, and certainly in Canada and the United States, in probably minutes if not seconds, so that law enforcement officials on both sides of the border can be alerted.

    Again, there is no easy answer, but it's about criminal intelligence. It's about effective, integrated law enforcement. It's about the border and our border agency making sure that people are not allowed to cross the land border or leave an airport or get on a boat from a port without proof of who that child is, that there is authorization, that the person has to indicate that he or she can take a child across the border. Our border agency people are good at pinpointing suspicious situations and they may well ask further questions.

    In fact, sometimes I think it's fair to say we get criticized because we ask a lot of questions when there is ultimately nothing wrong in a situation. But my view in this area, because the cost is so great if the child is lost to us, is that it's better to inconvenience someone at the border, ask the extra questions and say, we're sorry, but this is an important societal issue and people expect us to do our jobs. Therefore, it's better that we ask a few questions and even be accused of being invasive in some cases as opposed to not doing our job and having a child stolen or kidnapped and ripped away from their family.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister of Public Safety.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you. It was my pleasure to be here, as always. Invite me back any time.

    The Chair: Thank you to the deputy minister and department and agency heads.

    Minister, the committee may wish to look at the agencies or departments more closely before we vote on the money that has been proposed in the budget here today.

    Hon. Anne McLellan: They will be available.

    The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to suspend for 15 seconds and then go in camera for a very brief conversation on a scheduling matter.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]