JUST Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 15, 2003

0905

The Chair (Honorable Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Honorable Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada)

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

0910

0915

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Wayne Easter

0920

Mr. William Baker (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Firearms Centre)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Hon. Wayne Easter

0925

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

0930

Hon. Wayne Easter

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

0935

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

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

0940

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. William Baker

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

Hon. Wayne Easter

0945

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Hon. Wayne Easter

0950

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Wayne Easter

0955

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1000

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

1005

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1010

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Hon. Wayne Easter

1015

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Wayne Easter

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

1025

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Lucie McClung

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman)

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.)

Hon. Wayne Easter

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

1035

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Hon. Wayne Easter

1040

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Hon. Wayne Easter

1045

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Hon. Wayne Easter

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Hon. Wayne Easter

1050

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. John McKay

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

1055

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. William Baker

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1105

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1110

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

1115

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 047

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 15, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Honorable Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we're doing consideration of the main estimates 2003-2004, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, and 55 under Solicitor General.

Today we have the honour of having before us the Honourable Wayne Easter, the Solicitor General of Canada. Forgive the bias, but I think it's one of the most important positions in the country.

Honorable Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada): Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm going to allow the minister to introduce the other panellists to those of us who would need such an introduction.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen on the committee. I am indeed pleased to be here on the spending estimates and the priorities of the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

With me are Madame Nicole Jauvin, Deputy Solicitor General; Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli, RCMP Commissioner; Ms. Lucie McClung, Commissioner of the Correctional Services of Canada; Mr. Ian Glen, Chair of the National Parole Board; Mr. Ward Elcock, Director of CSIS; and Mr. Bill Baker, CEO of the Canadian Firearms Centre.

As this is my first appearance, Mr. Chair, before this committee as Solicitor General, I do look forward to your questions and working toward building greater understanding on the very positive work of this portfolio.

Last year at this time the world was focused on the aftermath of September 11. It changed the way we do business and the way we see the world. We have moved beyond the shock and grief and have taken action to improve our collective security. Today we are a very different place as a nation, as a government, and as a portfolio from what we were one year ago.

When we think of national security and public safety today, we often think of terrorism. Although there is no indication of an imminent attack on Canada, there is an ongoing threat to this continent. We will not drop our guard. Terrorism remains an unremitting threat, and we have taken some significant steps.

The government introduced Bill C-17, which will give our law enforcement and security agencies an effective tool to improve transportation security and the safety of all Canadians. We've improved security in our ports. In January I joined Ministers Collenette, Thibault, and Caplan to announce $172 million in new marine security projects. The initiative gives the RCMP, together with CSIS and my department, $20 million over five years to enhance our contribution.

With national defence, we began the five-year chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear research and technology initiative. A total of 41 projects are funded so far, uniting experts in science with first responders, researching ways to improve our response to these threats. More projects are forthcoming. In fact, last week I visited with one of these groups. As a full partner in the international effort to deny terrorists sanctuary and a base of operations, over the past year I announced the listing of 26 entities under the Criminal Code. The consequences are severe. Those listed may have assets seized and forfeited, and those who deal with those entities are subject to severe penalties.

We continue our work on lawful access, which poses certain challenges for law enforcement and national security officials. The RCMP and CSIS devoted $40 million to update their technical ability in this area, and we continue to work with Justice Canada and Industry Canada to make sure our laws keep pace. To respond to its increased workload, CSIS is replacing obsolete and dated technical equipment and has put in place an accelerated recruitment program.

Let me now turn to our ongoing work on our other priorities. I'll start with crime prevention. I had the opportunity to visit many communities over the last few months. I met children at risk who have benefited from crime prevention programs. I've toured federal penitentiaries, seen Vancouver's downtown eastside, and met with front-line police and parole officers. I've seen a lot about how crime affects us as a nation and as individuals.

I firmly believe in our effort to bring communities and governments together to fight crime and make communities safer. We continue to implement the national crime prevention strategy, funding over 3,000 projects in over 740 communities so far. It's an excellent example of how our work in public safety and security relies so much on partnerships. It's at the community level where that work can be seen best.

On RCMP and policing, we recognize that working together is working smarter, and that is especially true in policing. I hope you'll join me in saluting our police forces this week during national police week. We're certainly thankful for their hard work and dedication to our safety.

Our fight against organized crime continues. New legislation came into force fully last year. Police across the country continue to receive training on these new measures to target criminal organizations.

Building on the success of efforts like the integrated proceeds of crime units, we're working on creating integrated market enforcement teams to address corporate fraud and make Canada's capital markets more secure.

The national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, is another integrated effort. It is now under the responsibility of the RCMP. This specialized team supports local police investigations into firearms, including weapons trafficking and smuggling. They've been key players in a number of high-profile cases and they work well with the information from the Canadian Firearms Centre. It is an example where the firearms program is working and working well.

Providing culturally appropriate police services in Canada's first nations is also a priority. Budget 2003 provided an additional $42 million over two years to the first nations policing program, allowing us to expand the program and renew agreements. I've seen myself how well the FNPP works in building understanding and securing safer streets in our first nations communities.

While our paramount duty is to safeguard Canadian citizens, our borders do not end this obligation. We've been working more closely with international partners, and especially with the United States. Attorney General Ashcroft and I signed an agreement to improve the exchange of fingerprint information between the FBI and the RCMP. I will meet again with Mr. Ashcroft next week at the seventh Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum to build on our joint efforts.

Our strong commitment to international groups such as the G-8 remains, where we cooperate in a number of key issues, from child pornography to money laundering. In fact, the member for Crowfoot and I attended a G-8 meeting on such matters about a week and a half ago.

On firearms, Mr. Chair, a somewhat controversial program with some members of this committee and some members of the community, while our partnerships nationally and internationally remain a priority, we're also busy on improving services within this portfolio. It's been one month since the gun control program was transferred to us from the Department of Justice. Our action plan to streamline the program is well underway. We're making sure it gives significant public safety benefits at lower costs, and we've committed to giving a full account of the program to Parliament each year.

I'm pleased that most Canadians still see gun control as a good investment in public safety. Its value has been proven time and time again. The firearms registry has been accessed over two million times by law enforcement officers since 1998, but that number in these days is about 2,000 times a day.

More than 425,000 registration applications have been submitted online, and more than three-quarters of the 1.9 million licensed firearms owners have already registered their guns. We're well on our way to ensuring that every gun owner will have registered or applied to register their firearms by the June 30 deadline.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you and committee members, I recognize very well that there have been problems with this program—I am a rural Canadian, I understand guns—and we're very much resolved within our department and with the firearms centre to fix these problems and make the system work for all, including those who have been somewhat opposed and some who have been strenuously opposed to the system.

Turning now to corrections, since my appointment I do have a greater appreciation for the system. Offenders do, in fact, come from our communities, and almost all will one day return there to that community. Our correctional service works well. Ninety percent of offenders do not return to federal custody within two years of completing their sentence. Almost 80% do not return within five years.

¿ (0910)

It's not perfect, but despite criticism, it is very good and focused on getting better. There are many success stories people just don't hear about—stories of healing, rehabilitation, and successful reintegration. These represent the majority of the cases, and they prove that community support and involvement is essential to positive outcomes.

We've seen a new openness in the system. Parole hearings are not held in secret. More than 5,400 people, including victims and journalists, have attended parole hearings in the past five years. Victims have been given a greater role and they have a voice at parole hearings. There have been over 220 presentations made by victims, 165 of them in person. Victims also have better access to information on offenders. Over the past five years there have been over 55,000 contacts from victims. A new toll-free information line has helped them contact the board from anywhere in North America.

Corrections continue to be recognized as a pillar to crime prevention and building safer communities. Other countries call upon Canada for its know-how in this field, as we've recently seen with the rebuilding in Iraq. Similarly, the RCMP has been requested for their knowledge and expertise in terms of rebuilding Iraq and making safer communities.

Overall, the system is geared to balance the rights of all Canadians—victims and offenders. We've built that into Bill C-23 and Bill C-33, the new Transfer of Offenders Act and a new law to create a national sex offender registry. We will further improve the system in the coming months as we work on legislative amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The best response to crime takes a lot of effort, a range of different partners, and the very best of technology. That's why my department has been forging ahead on its integrated justice information initiative. The initiative will build a national network of criminal justice, law enforcement, and public safety agencies linked electronically to improve the way we share offender and crime-related information.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we are very proud of all the good work within my portfolio and with our partners in Canada and beyond. Canada's safety and security requires a new culture in a world transformed by terrorism, by global criminal networks, and by war.

Let me assure you that we are committed to taking the best path to public safety, and that is to stop crime before it happens. Everything we do, whether it's firearms registration or parole supervision, is done to improve public safety and ultimately prevent crime. I assure you that this portfolio is up to the task. We will continue to build on our partnerships to make sensible choices to protect our freedom and our values and do our very best to prevent crime and maintain peace and safety for all Canadians.

I'd be more than pleased to answer your questions, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

¿ (0915)

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

I go first to Mr. Sorenson. Before I do, before I start your time, I would ask that the committee members and the panel make their interventions, questions and answers, as brief as possible so we can get through as much business of this exercise as we can today.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each one of you who has come today. It's always a pleasure to have commissioners and those in charge of the department before the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here. I always fight the urge to ask you an agricultural question. Our Solicitor General used to be the head of a national farm organization. Now he's the head of the national firearms registry. I'm not sure how that's playing out among the farming communities.

I do want to ask you a little bit more about the transfer of the registry from the Department of Justice to your department. It's happened just recently. We still question even the legality. All the legislation dealing with the firearms registry talks about the Minister of Justice being the one in charge. When I go through the estimates, and maybe I missed it, I don't see anything really specific to the firearms registry. We know that there's $113.1 million remaining in the justice department's budget or estimates. We haven't seen that transfer over.

How are you planning on maintaining this firearm registry, given that there's really no place where it shows? Is it out of the RCMP budget, or how is that going to work?

Hon. Wayne Easter: No, it's certainly not out of the RCMP budget.

As you know, the firearms centre itself has been transferred over, and will be headed by Bill Baker under the authority of the Solicitor General. NWEST has certainly been transferred to the RCMP. I'll have to ask Bill to come in on the legal documentation and the various statutes that may be involved, but basically what's happened is that the moneys allocated for those areas under the Department of Justice have come over to either the firearms centre or the Department of the Solicitor General to accomplish what was intended.

As you know as well, there was a ten-point action plan that the Minister of Justice and I announced in February, I believe it was. We're well on the road to implementing some of those areas in the action plan. In terms of costing, I will admit that because it did take us a long time to get Bill C-10A through the House, it has put us a little behind on costs, but we are making reasonable progress in getting the system running more efficiently than it was, both on the Internet and the toll-free line, and so on. I'll get into some of those points later.

Bill, do you want to touch on the legal areas?

¿ (0920)

Mr. William Baker (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Firearms Centre): Good morning.

Under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, providing the legislative mechanism for the operation to move from the authority of the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General, there is an administrative arrangement in the interim between the two departments for dealing with the funding issues surrounding that. Until we go to the Treasury Board in the fall to set up the vote structure and necessary authorities, which is standard procedure, there is a memorandum of understanding that effectively allows moneys to be expended under the authority of the Solicitor General.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Speaking of registries, our party has been demanding a national sex offender registry for years. I noticed in your presentation this morning that there's no mention of the national sex offender registry. We recognize that police agencies across the country have called for a national sex offender registry. Given the media coverage recently of the brutal and horrific murder of Holly Jones in Toronto, there has been a renewed call for the national sex offender registry.

I noticed, Mr. Minister, that you were quoted in the newspaper today as saying that you hoped to have the registry in place by June. But given the fact that the legislation hasn't even come to committee yet, and that there are obvious holes and flaws in this legislation.... For example, there's no retroactivity in the proposal that you bring forward, whereby people who are incarcerated for sex offences at the present time would be automatically put on the registry. There has to be an application by a prosecutor of the crown to have somebody put on the registry, so it's not a given that a sex offender will automatically be put on the registry. There are just so many holes in it, yet the police agencies are crying out for something or more resources to help fight crime and to make our streets safer.

How do you plan on implementing this registry by June?

Hon. Wayne Easter: If you go back to my remarks, you will see that I did mention the national sex offender registry that we want to establish with the legislation, but that's beside the point.

The fact of the matter is that, yes, we need it, and we want to see it go through the House as quickly as possible. You and your party are extremely important to our being able to get that legislation through the House as quickly as possible. No doubt we will be looking for your cooperation, and I suppose you'll be looking for ours.

In any event, we managed to reach agreement on implementing a national sex offender registry at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting last November, I believe it was. That is extremely important, because we want the provinces onside.

And, yes, there's a difference of opinion between ourselves and some in the country on retroactivity. We believe we would face many challenges with retroactivity. In fact, some of the people who are speaking out in Ontario and asking for retroactivity did not bring in retroactivity when they brought in their own piece of legislation. In fact, there is a sex offender registry in place in the province of Ontario, and negotiations are going on between my department and Ontario officials to see if that component could at least remain retroactive for those offenders who were on the list. But that's still in discussion.

So we are making progress, and I certainly would like to see the House of Commons pass this legislation prior to the summer break.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, a very quick question.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I would quickly like to ask the Commissioner of Correctional Services, what institutions house the greatest number of sex offenders? We have a huge concern at the Canadian Alliance, as brought out in our media reports the last little while, about the Warkworth and Kingston prisons having unlimited access to channels airing sexually explicit movies. When we talked to Correctional Services Canada, they reported back to say basically that the criminals should be allowed any type of programming the general public gets, and that it all has to be cleared through the CRTC. If Warkworth and Kingston have the highest rate of sex offenders.... When we brought this up with the Solicitor General, he said, “I am aware of the specific matter as it relates to this institution. CSC has identified the problem and has taken action.”

Just very quickly, what action has been taken in regard to some of this programming at our institutions?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Ms. McClung.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Commissioner, go ahead.

Ms. Lucie McClung (Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada): I can't answer the first part of your question. I don't have readily available information on where the majority of sexual offenders are incarcerated.

I will tell you, however, that there are 335 sexual offenders in maximum security institutions; 1,213 in medium security institutions; 315 in minimum security institutions; and about 93 across multi-level institutions.

As to the issue of whether or not sexually explicit movies are indeed a criminogenic factor leading to re-offences, or will be an impediment to treatment, the policy is that if they are deemed, on an individual basis, to be an impediment by the team, measures will be taken to stop the offender from seeing sexually explicit material.

[Translation]

Research in this regard is not conclusive. We asked our research division to do more research into this issue and I am waiting for results before doing anything more systematic or general.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. McClung.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I would like to deal with an issue that is of interest to all Canadians and Quebeckers, that is the sponsorship program and the scandals that occurred in this respect. I will not list all of the scandals, but I have a question in this regard. Could you tell us how many files have been referred to the RCMP? I am talking here about files such as those of Groupaction, Robert-Guy Scully, Communications Coffin and Groupe Polygone, none of which, according to media reports, will result in any charges being laid.

Several of those files have been handed over to the RCMP over a year ago. I will probably raise in a second round the case of another file involving HRDC and which is of great interest to us and the public. We seem to be faced with some sort of huge bubble. I do not want to criticize the RCMP—and this is why I am asking you, Mr. Minister—but it would be useful to know why still nothing has come out of these investigations more than one year after these files have been referred to the RCMP and despite the many allegations and all the evidence submitted. Let us take the case of Groupaction. The facts are clear and proven. The Auditor General did an internal investigation of this program and it is clear that there were major problems with it.

The only thing we can say about these files—especially where there is a political linkage—is that they simply fade away. It is impossible to find out what is happening and we only hear from press reports that no charges can be laid because of lack of evidence. But according to the facts presented in the House, it is clear that there were problems. Where do these investigations stand?

I would like to be able to question the RCMP in this regard. How can Canadian citizens retain their confidence in the investigations carried out by the most experienced law enforcement officers, the RCMP, when we get a blank statement several years later that they produced no results?

¿ (0930)

[English]

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you.

As I think you know, the investigation of the sponsorship issue certainly falls under the RCMP, but in terms of the whole issue of sponsorship programs, it has been allocated to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who has done very good work in bringing many of those problems under control.

On the RCMP specifically, no one is above the law, and I think you can be assured that the investigations into matters are proceeding along the lines of law enforcement investigations, as they should.

I don't know if the commissioner wants to speak to the specifics, but it would certainly be inappropriate for me to speak on the operational matters of the RCMP.

Mr. Zaccardelli, did you want to add anything?

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Yes, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, as you know, in our system an investigation is carried out whenever there is an allegation of wrong-doing. Once the investigation is complete, a case is presented to court. But we do not keep the courts abreast of the progress of our investigations.

I obviously am accountable to my minister for what we do and how the organization is being managed. But we have to wait for the investigations to be complete before we know if there is sufficient evidence to proceed in a court of criminal law.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Could I have a precise answer to my question? How many files related to the sponsorship program have been referred to you? Have you laid any charges at this point in time regarding any one of these files?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: This is privileged information; I will not comment on any ongoing investigation.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I am asking you how many investigations there are and not how they are doing. Could the Solicitor General tell me how many files relating to this program have been referred and how many charges have been laid up to now?

[English]

Hon. Wayne Easter: No, I do not. As I indicated earlier, this is a matter of law enforcement.

But yes, I certainly have every reason to believe that no one is above the law and that the full extent of those investigations are going forward. If there is a concern about it, there is the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, and there are the courts, which people can go to.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What harm can there come from saying how many files have been referred? Why would this information be confidential and why can the RCMP not provide the figure? There is nothing confidential in this and nothing could prejudice a police investigation. You must explain why you cannot answer my question.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Lanctôt.

Mr. Minister.

Hon. Wayne Easter: The commissioner will answer further on that question.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chair, just to give you some background, I believe that a number of years ago a former commissioner gave the number of investigations being undertaken by the RCMP. It caused quite a scandal when that number was released. So that is why we do not release in our system the number of investigations, or any details about any ongoing investigations. That might shed some light on why we don't give specifics.

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

Mr. Robinson, for seven minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With the indulgence of the committee, I have just one brief question, and then my colleague, Mr. Nystrom, who is our justice spokesperson, will take the remainder of the time.

I'd like to ask the minister a question about an issue I have raised with him, both in the House and elsewhere, with respect to the very important issue of the opportunity for federal funding for firefighters to respond to possible biological, chemical, or radiological attacks.

The minister is aware of this issue. He knows there is a well-established program in place in the United States, put together by the International Association of Firefighters. It's an excellent program. Canadian firefighters, Mr. Chair, have been urging the Canadian government—this minister, other ministers—to provide the funding—and we're talking about $500,000 here—to enable those people, who are often on the first lines, the first responders to these possible attacks, to get the education they need.

I've raised this issue with the minister and the Minister of National Defence, and we keep being told, “Well, it's being studied. It's being examined. OCIPEP is looking at it.”

I want to ask this minister how much longer the government is going to delay before it finally provides the funding necessary to enable first responders, who in many cases are working with the RCMP as well, to do the job they want to do.

¿ (0935)

Hon. Wayne Easter: Well, yes, in fact I think we've made fairly major progress in this area, Mr. Robinson. In fact, I was at a training workshop last week where first responders--firemen, police, RCMP, etc.--were looking at chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear events and taking training. It was at the Canadian Police College.

In fact, in budget 2001, $23 million was put into the RCMP for training. In the last budget, $59 million was put into OCIPEP, which is under DND but certainly works jointly with first responders, and $12 million was put into equipment for first responders to work with--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Specific programs—$500,000.

Hon. Wayne Easter: —in terms of raising the funding to biological areas. This area is certainly still being looked at, but I can tell you this: since September 11 and the tragedies there, a lot more effort has been made and a lot more funding has been put into training, equipping first responders so they can do their job better, without the extensive fear of their own public health and safety.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that, but this is a very specific, well-established program that the International Association of Firefighters have said they want funding for, half a million dollars, out of all that money the minister has talked about. The last time I asked the minister, he said “We're looking into it”. Today he's saying “We're looking into it”. Can the minister indicate what the problem is here? Why can't the government act now and support this program? How much longer are they going to be looking into it?

Hon. Wayne Easter: Yes, well, I mean, in part, it may fall more under OCIPEP, and they've been given money.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Don't pass the buck, Mr. MInister. You've agreed that you'd work with them.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'm not passing the buck. I've met with the firefighters myself. I understand their concerns, but there are all kinds of requests for funding coming forward to the Government of Canada; this is but one. It's an important one, from their point of view, yes—

Mr. Svend Robinson: And when will you respond to it?

Hon. Wayne Easter: As I've indicated in my response, there has been a lot done in the last two years for first responders to assist them in that capability.

Mr. Svend Robinson: When will the minister respond to this request? How much longer do they have to wait?

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'm not going to put a timeline on when either myself, as minister, or the Government of Canada will respond to this specific issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Does the minister support it?

Hon. Wayne Easter: If we don't respond to it within a few months, I expect we will again hear from firefighters and yourself and others on the need for that money. But we have to establish some priorities. We have felt that the moneys we've expended on first responders are there and are helping them—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's a total absence of leadership, Mr. Chairman.

My colleague Mr. Nystrom I'm sure wants to follow up—

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom has less than two minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —with a very pungent question.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I guess another question is what else do we have to say?

I just want to ask then in this case--only for two minutes—what the minister can say about any plans he may have for gun safety classes and courses. I know in Saskatchewan there was one cancelled because of lack of federal funding.

It's important that people have more training in terms of firearms safety. It's an issue that's brought to my office and my concern a number of times. There's a lot of money in the federal government coffers in general, yet there's been a program in Saskatchewan cancelled for lack of federal funding. I just want to know what the minister says about that and what his plans are for the future.

¿ (0940)

Hon. Wayne Easter: I think the program you're specifically speaking of, Mr. Nystrom, was on a three-year contract. It was known that it would in fact lapse at the end of that contract, the firearms centre. I can ask Mr. Baker to come in on this if he so wishes. We do provide funding for training. That specific contract was in fact terminated at the end of the contract.

Mr. Baker, do you want to add to this?

Mr. William Baker: Yes, as the minister pointed out, it was a three-year contract with SAFE, the organization in Saskatchewan, and the contract expired. Training continues to be provided directly by the instructors. There are over 500 certified instructors in the province of Saskatchewan. Actually, the province has excellent coverage on safety education with respect to firearms.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I want to ask the minister what his plans are in terms of more funding for firearms safety in general.

The Chair: That's directed to you, Minister.

Hon. Wayne Easter: What is the plan for funding of firearms safety?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I think Mr. Baker has basically already answered the question. Firearms safety is extremely important. It falls under the firearms program. Everything from training to proper storage is a part of the package. In fact, the whole firearms program in its essence is to make streets safer and to prevent accidents with firearms as well.

I mean, the firearms program is not just about illegal guns or weapons out there; it's about the proper use of firearms so accidents do not happen and guns are not stored in such a way as an individual or a youth, or even a small child, can get them and cause severe harm to himself or to others. So they've been working at it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We now go to Mr. O'Brien for seven minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman, because I have to go to the House shortly to speak on an item there.

Minister, thank you for being here with your officials.

I guess, Mr. Minister, I start with the work of the Solicitor General—or SolGen, as we refer to you around here—kind of your portfolio in general. I think it remains a bit of a mystery to most Canadians. I'm not sure why that is, given the array of talented people you have with you here this morning and the important work they do. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the degree of information Canadians generally have and if you agree with my perception.

I guess even more to the point, what, if anything, would you propose could be done to... As an educator, I happen to believe the more information the public has the better. Within the obvious limits, what might you propose to help make the very important work you do a little more known to the Canadian people?

Hon. Wayne Easter: That's an interesting question, Mr. O'Brien.

Yes, I think the Department of the Solicitor General to a great extent is relatively unknown. As you can see by the people with me this morning, it represents quite a number of agencies, the RCMP, CSIS, the National Parole Board, Corrections Canada, the Department of the Solicitor General itself, and the Canadian Firearms Centre.

This portfolio covers to a great extent all aspects of Canadian life and is extremely important in our national security issues as Canadians in terms of our relationship with the United States and with other countries around the world, and indeed public safety on our streets.

I would agree with you that the department has remained relatively unknown because we have tended to react to the bad news that's out there—if someone escapes or a parole board hearing went the wrong way or whatever. But this is a good-news department, an extremely good-news department. Our correction system is recognized as one of the best in the world. Our law enforcement agency is recognized as one of the best in the world. They're in demand, as are the others, in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq.

We have countries call on us to see how to set up police forces, prison systems, and correctional systems. Our corrections system is developed to rehabilitate people so they can become part of society again. We all make mistakes. Some people don't have half a chance in life, given the background they come from. Our approach within our corrections system is to work with those people, to try to rehabilitate them, so they can come out on the streets and be productive in society and exercise their human potential.

That's just one example of many. I would admit that I think we have to do a better job of spelling out what we do within this department, because it is a good-news department, and we want to keep it that way.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Minister, for that.

My second question relates to border security. I come from southwestern Ontario—London, Ontario, specifically—and there's no region of the country more impacted by border security than our particular region of southwestern Ontario, given the amount of traffic at Windsor, but also very close to London there's a lot of traffic at Sarnia and Port Huron. So it's a great concern for my part of the country, as it is indeed for all Canadians, that our regular flow of trade and people back and forth between our two countries, Canada and the United States, is as trouble-free as possible. There are problems right now, and we'd like to see them addressed.

Minister, could you briefly overview how your ministry is involved in this and the steps you're taking as part of a team to expedite the flow of goods and services and people between the two nations?

Hon. Wayne Easter: The commissioner might want to come in at some point in this question as well.

I think, as you know, Mr. O'Brien, we take the border security issue very, very seriously, and we work in a very cooperative and good relationship with the United States in that matter.

The Deputy Prime Minister outlined a 30-point smart border action plan, of which several points relate to various portfolios within the Department of the Solicitor General.

We have established integrated border enforcement teams with the United States, cooperatively between the United States and Canada, in which you have the RCMP. I've seen some of those in operation. I believe there are 14 across the country. They vary in terms of their makeup. The one in Vancouver, for instance, has a different makeup from the one in St. Catharines or in the Niagara region of Ontario.

Those integrated border enforcement teams bring together the RCMP, CSIS, Canada Customs, a cross-section of departments, along with a cross-section of departments within the United States. I think they build understanding on the ground and cooperation of working together in catching people who are smuggling, whether it's firearms, humans, or drugs. So I think they're doing a better job on the border that way.

Yesterday, in fact, in cooperation with the U.S.—the U.S. Congress mandated that every two years, I believe it is, there be major training exercises on anti-terrorism—we had what was called TOPOFF 2, in which we had a number of senior cabinet ministers in Canada, as well as senior secretaries in the United States, participating in scenarios on potential terrorist acts against North America. That's to find in a training exercise any problems we may have so that we can be better prepared to take on terrorist activity.

As you know, the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-36, was passed some time ago. We're listing entities under that, which is important to the United States and others around the world, as well as to us. We have the Public Safety Act in place, and hopefully that will get through the House of Commons before long—or the Senate now. So quite a number of measures are taking place.

I don't know, Commissioner, if any colleagues with me want to add anything that I might have missed.

¿ (0950)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Minister, I think you've covered it very well.

In this whole issue of dealing with the border in a very intelligent way to today's challenges, whether it's organized crime or terrorism, what we've done in Canada is truly a best practice. We've piloted it in B.C., and then under the leadership of the minister we've taken it nationally. But we have also got the Americans to buy into this really best practice.

I go back to your question before--how to celebrate some of the great things that this department, in its totality, is doing. This is a perfect example of how we've really led the response to the new challenges we're facing.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman, for three minutes.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I assume you're now aware of the problem of marijuana growing operations in Canada, and I think you're pretty well aware of the extent of the problem in my constituency of Surrey North alone.

In Surrey alone, there are an estimated 3,500 to 4,500 marijuana growing operations. These generate annual revenues conservatively estimated to be in excess of $2 billion a year, just in Surrey. We see this marijuana going into the United States, this currency, and we see guns and cocaine coming back.

These grow operations are run by violent criminal gangs, and they're located in residential neighbourhoods where there are plenty of children around. My constituents are concerned, and I don't believe there's a single day that goes by that I don't receive a letter, an e-mail, or a phone call from a constituent extremely concerned and angry that nothing is being done about it.

There is a report out of the criminal intelligence directorate on marijuana cultivation in Canada, which was dated November 2002. Curiously, that didn't make its way onto the Internet until April 24 of this year, so I wonder what the delay was there. But that report indicates that grow-ops have increased sixfold in Canada since 1993—and Minister, I submit that's under your government's watch.

You received that report in the pre-budget phase—I'm assuming that, because it was released in November 2002. Perhaps I've missed something, but I don't see anything in the estimates to address directly the issue of marijuana growing operations, not just in Surrey alone but also in other parts of Canada. I know there's a major problem in central Ontario.

Did you make the finance minister aware that the RCMP had told you that grow operations have reached “epidemic proportions”—that's their wording—and that resourcing was an issue?

Minister, innocent lives are at risk here. We've had drive-by shootings, murders, assaults—and as I said, these were in upscale residential neighbourhoods in my constituency. So I want to know why we don't see any resources directly targeting marijuana growing operations. Do you have any strategy in place to address this problem directly? It's out of control, at least in my constituency, and I'm sure in other parts of Canada.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Yes, as you are aware and as you've mentioned, I did in fact meet with the RCMP in Surrey; I've met with people who work on the ground. We saw a video on a takedown of a marijuana growing operation. I drove up the street, and it was pointed out where there had been marijuana growing operations. It is indeed—and we admit it up front—an extremely serious problem, and one that must be challenged head-on.

I think the RCMP and other local police forces are doing everything they can do under the current situation to in fact take down many of the marijuana growing operations, but we have to do more. When I spoke to the Canadian Police Association, I said I do see marijuana growing operations as a serious matter and a matter the Government of Canada must take up very clearly and very directly. But it is bigger than just law enforcement itself.

Yes, I brought it to my colleagues' attention, and over the next few weeks I believe you will see proposals coming forward from the Government of Canada that will, in a more comprehensive fashion, challenge the grow operations in a way to increase penalties and take them down, because they are not what we want to see in our society.

So in regard to the Government of Canada, I think you've seen some peripheral discussion in the press on what may or may not be happening in the next few weeks, but I think you will be reasonably satisfied that the penalties and the ability to take on these operations will be increased very substantially and the penalties will be severe.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I might say as well, because I know you've worked extensively on this, as has my colleague Dan McTeague from Ontario, who also has quite a number of marijuana growing operations in his area, that they are a problem that we have to see stopped. It is our intent, with proposals coming forward, to in fact do that.

I think you need to be thanked for your efforts in putting on the pressure to see that this is done, as well as other colleagues in all parties.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'm going to go out of order a bit. Mr. Hearn was unfortunately missed in the first round because Mr. Nystrom had followed Mr. Robinson. I went from Mr. Nystrom across the way, so I'm sure no one is going to object as I go to Mr. Hearn for his seven minutes, and then I'll go back to the regular order.

Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We'll be a little closer to you next week, so we'll be easier to spot.

Let me also thank the minister and his staff for being here this morning. I certainly hope we get the same cooperation from the minister and the same results as we did when we worked together on another committee, which went very well. I wish you well, sir.

In relation to questions, first of all, let me make a comment. I fully support Mr. Robinson's comments in relation to the fund for special training for firemen as the first response effort. I suggest that people monitor, anytime they're involved or close to any kind of major act, event, or disruption, whether it be a bombing, fire, or you name it, who is the first on the scene. Usually you will find the firemen are there, quite often without this adequate training that they would need as we see a changing world evolve around us. So I certainly support the suggestion that the funding they require for specialized training be approved as soon as possible.

You mention in your own statement, sir, the improvements you've made in the department. You talk about improved security in our ports. Do you intend to reinstitute the port police?

Hon. Wayne Easter: That is really an area of responsibility that falls under the Department of Transport, Mr. Hearn, but it's my understanding there's no intent to do so. Part of the announcement in January in Halifax, the $172 million that was put into marine security, across a number of departments—Fisheries and Oceans, which you know well, the Canadian Coast Guard, the RCMP, and CSIS—was to do better screening of individuals who work in port settings and in fact people who would be doing the work the harbour police used to do.

So we believe we have very substantially increased marine security through that proposal, and those moneys will roll out over the next five years to do that job.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: One of the major concerns in the country as it relates to security is along our coastlines. If we drive across the border today, we're searched bumper to bumper, both ourselves and the car. If we fly in, we know what we go through at the airports. However, if I have anything from a dory to an oceanliner, I can land in large areas of this country completely undetected.

The amount of goods that come in through our ports, as you know, is phenomenal, and I think there is a major weakness there. Unless we have a specific—whether they're called port police or whether it's the RCMP, whatever—dedicated task force dealing with marine security, I think we are open to breaches. That certainly will be our biggest problem, not only from the illicit trade that could come through our ports, but also, of course, the people who slip in through our ports and the possibility of a major happening in illicit trade, which would be completely and utterly undetected if we didn't have specific people who know what to look for, how to look for it, and when to look for it. This hit-and-miss situation is not going to work.

À (1000)

Hon. Wayne Easter: Well, I think, Mr. Chair, Mr. Hearn and I actually did sit on the same committee in which we looked at the serious aspect of marine security in both ports. We did a tour of western Canada and the United States, from Seattle to Vancouver to Alaska, and on the east coast as well, and that was following September 11. We made recommendations as a committee, and several of them have been addressed by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Hearn's question, though, relates not just to our work. There's certainly been work done by CSIS in that particular area, and there's certainly been work done by the RCMP. There are a lot of departments involved. There's Canada Customs, in which we put new electronic equipment that can X-ray containers. There's Transport Canada, with their security at ports. We have a meeting of cabinet ministers called PSAT that meets weekly on security matters. It covers quite a number of ministries, everything from health to agriculture to customs to immigration, and it works across departments to ensure there is security in all aspects of Canada, from airports to marine ports to borders.

I feel reasonably confident we're doing a good job and making great strides forward. There's always more that can be done, and that's why we continue to meet and continue to try to address these problems. There's the $7.7 billion that was in budget 2001, which also covers some of these areas to enhance our security and our law enforcement as a nation to ensure that not only Canadians feel confident in their own country, but our neighbours around the world as well.

The Chair: To Ms. Jennings, for three minutes.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here, for the presentations you've made, and the clarifications.

I have three questions. The first one concerns SOR, the sex offender registry, Bill C-23, which is before this committee. We're actually scheduled to begin our public consultations on May 29, if I'm not mistaken, just to correct a statement that was made by my colleague on the other side of the House.

This question is for you, Commissioner Zaccardelli, on the question of retroactivity.

As administrative law currently stands, you could have an officer who four and a half years ago was found guilty of some violation of the disciplinary code—he went through the whole process, was found guilty, and was sentenced to one week's suspension from work, without pay—and he could serve the sentence, come back to work, and then later be up for a promotion, actually win a competition and be designated a promotion. If in the interim you'd negotiated new rules, and for the same offence now it's three months suspension without pay and no possibility for a promotion for two years, would you be able, under the law, to go back and apply that new sanction to that individual who had already served his penalty as it was designated at that time? Would you be allowed to do that?

À (1005)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chair, I'm getting a very hypothetical question. To answer the question of whether I can do that legally, I would obviously have to get some legal advice.

Basically, if somebody has been dealt with under the administrative process, once that's done, then depending on what the policy is—we're always reviewing our policy—if they've been handed out a certain sentence, they've complied with that, and they're still in the force, then they become eligible under the policy if they meet the criteria and the competencies for the next job.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Right, but if you change the penalties, you don't go back and apply the penalties to someone who's served the penalty that existed previously. Have you ever done that?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, not to my knowledge.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The other is on the issue of listed entities. I have significant Arab and Muslim communities—they're ethnically diverse—in my riding. I've had a number express concern about the listed entities, that they somehow might fall afoul of the Criminal Code.

I'll give an example. They're of Palestenian origin, and they might still have family back in Lebanon, or in the Palestinian territory under Palestinian authority, or in Syria. Their family is not doing well, so they send money back to help them, as most immigrants who come from the developing world do. If it turns out one of their family members is giving money to an organization that has been listed, and they have no knowledge of that—the money they're sending back is to buy clothing, maybe pay bills, help pay for schooling, if there are school fees involved—does our law as it now stands put the Canadians in jeopardy?

Hon. Wayne Easter: No, it does not put the Canadians in jeopardy. As I mentioned earlier, the listing of entities is very severe, if people are in fact contributing to organizations that are listed.

I've said this before, on the listing of entities. In my view, it is a serious matter, and if you're really going to take terrorism on in a big way, then you have to cut the terrorist activity at its source, which is at the funding level.

So if people are knowingly contributing to entities we have listed, in my view they are as guilty as the person who pulls the trigger—if they're knowingly doing it. That's why we've listed these entities. It's not only to protect Canadians; it's also to protect others around the world.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before going to the second point I want to raise, I would like to point out to the minister and the commissioner that the refusal to divulge the number of files relating to HRDC or the sponsorship program bring the justice system even more into disrepute. Canadians and Quebeckers heard your refusal to answer, even though there is nothing confidential in this information. I want to state that I do not understand this refusal.

Mr. Minister, I too was in Paris at the G-8 meeting on justice. I was struck to see that your speech has been largely ridiculed. When the discussion dealt with finger printing and biometric identity cards, you raised the issue of privacy protection but one had a sense that you had already given up. Around the table, all the talk was that since September 11, security has become the only consideration and that there is no room for privacy protection. I did not sense that this was a priority either for you or the minister of Justice.

At any rate, your speech abroad has had little impact. Everything you are doing here—such as bills C-17 and C-55—is along the same lines as the discussions in the G-8. How can your justify to Canadians and Quebeckers that we are pretty well establishing a police state with little protection for privacy?

À (1010)

[English]

Hon. Wayne Easter: I should address a couple of points there. One is on the allegation towards the law enforcement agencies, and in particular on the RCMP not divulging its numbers. I can tell you quite clearly that Canadians can have confidence in the RCMP and our law enforcement abilities in this country. To jeopardize our ability to be able to do those law enforcement numbers by getting into the numbers of who is investigating and how would be the wrong thing to do. We're not going to fall into that trap, sir, if I need to tell you so.

Secondly, on the G-8 meeting, you must have been at a different meeting from the one the member for Crowfoot and I were at, because there was no ridiculing of any Canadian speech, whether it was mine or whether it was the Minister of Justice's at that particular meeting. In fact, I think there was good cooperation around the table. There was praise for the Canadian position on DNA. There was good cooperation in terms of trying to move forward internationally, through Interpol, in terms of child porn.

I would certainly submit to you that we need to continue those kinds of meetings, because if we're going to deal with this increasingly different world in terms of organized crime, terrorism, child pornography on the Internet, and the abuse of people's rights around the world by many who are using the globalized environment to get away with crime, everything from fraud to money laundering, we need to continue to attend those events and put our participation on the table.

Of course, not everyone's always going to agree. We do have different values in Canada from other countries. I'm very proud of our values. We'll continue to put them forward.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Minister, my direction this morning would be on border security as well.

You made reference to basically how you perceive your role, our role as the federal government, the RCMP, in border security. You made reference here this morning to IBETs, which on paper seems to be an excellent response to border security. The RCMP would appear to be the facilitators on the Canadian side. My concern is on the ground response as well as on resources.

You reference the St. Catharine's unit. Their territory is from Tecumseh, which is roughly Windsor, all the way to Kingston, which is basically the coastlines of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the Niagara River.

I understand that there are five individuals in that unit, which has been increased or will shortly be increased to seven. Notwithstanding that, I'm wondering whether they're resourced properly for that area. When there are incidents, if there are incidents, obviously the first responders would probably be the regional police services in that area. Is there any thought given to providing additional funding to those police services? Should we be expanding it to something like a border patrol like our U.S. neighbour has? What are we going to do on the ground in the area with respect to first response, as well?

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll ask the commissioner to come in on this one as well. It is an extremely important area.

I did mention the IBETs earlier, the integrated border enforcement teams. There are also the integrated immigration enforcement teams, I believe they're called, which are in cooperation with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The RCMP is also working in that area. There are some areas in marine security that we work on.

Specifically on the border issue, I guess part of the advantage of the way we're working these integrated border enforcement teams now is that your numbers may not be huge, but you're able to access the resources of those you're working with in a larger way, if an incident were to happen. You have greater expertise, greater coordination, and I think a greater ability to do the job to the kind of connectivity you have through working together.

First responders is an extremely important area, John, there's no question about it. I think where it struck me most is when I attended a meeting in Calgary of first responders who came from across the country—firemen, policemen, ambulance workers, and others. That is why, through OCIPEP, really, and ourselves—and I indicated earlier the training that took place the other day at the Canadian Police College—that's why we're working and spending money on equipment, on research and development in those areas, recognizing that in 95% of the cases, they're the people who are on the scene first. We need to do everything within our ability to give them the tools and equipment to work with, if there is in fact an incident.

This coordination, through IBETs and IIETs and others, is a good step in terms of developing that understanding and coordination.

Commissioner, I don't know if you have anything you want to add.

À (1015)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Well, Minister, I think you've covered it extremely well.

I'd like to add that the philosophy of dealing with the border or anything related to criminality or terrorism—and Ward would comment on that—is, first of all, that it be intelligence-led, and then you have flexible and mobile teams that are ready to move and respond. What you do not want to have is static people sitting in one area. Even if you were to double some of these teams, you'd still not have sufficient resources to cover everything. So the key is to have good intelligence that can identify the problem or the potential problem and then you react in a swift and effective way.

It's the same thing with the ports. The issue of the ports police keeps coming up all the time. The real issue of dealing with the ports is to make sure that we have good intelligence from all our partners working together so we respond when and if required, because the border with the Americans is too long to ever ensure that we're going to cover it 100%. We need to have the information so that we respond where and if it's required and bring the resources to those issues.

That's what the integrated model does, it puts at the disposal of those seven people a whole category of other law enforcement and other agencies that can back those up. That's the approach we're using. That's the approach the Americans are using on the same side. We believe that's the most effective way to respond to this challenge.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Hearn, for three minutes.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In relation to the gun registry, we're in the vicinity of $1 billion. We can argue pros or cons, what's $100 million either way, I guess. However, how much of that money was spent directly or indirectly on advertising? If you as a minister who has inherited this mess had to start from the beginning to deal with gun control, not gun registry, but with gun control—your government always refers to the issue as gun control—how would you do it differently? Or would you do what your predecessors have done, to find yourself exactly in the position you are in now?

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

I'll ask Bill to answer on the advertising end.

I'm not going to get into hypothetical assumptions on what we could have done. We are where we are. Whether we like it or not, we are where we are. We've admitted up front that this program did not, on a cost basis or even on the registration side, end up at the stage where we wanted it to.

It's not $1 billion. It's somewhere at $866 million. Bill can give you the exact figure of where it's at now. As a result, we're admitting up front that there have been problems with this program.

I want to say to those who are opposed to the program that the intent of this program is not to make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. It was a difficult experience for the ministers in charge and for the firearms centre, who tried to deal with the situations as they occurred and the opposition that was out there. With the experience we've had, I think we've learned a lot of lessons.

On the positive side, even given the fact that everyone is not now registered as we would like to see, we hope they will be by June 30. We're going to try to do everything possible for them to be registered. Given the fact that everyone is not registered, I could name you example after example where there are success stories now in terms of making the streets safer.

The NWEST, national weapons enforcement support team, is turned over to the RCMP. Because they've been able to access the registry and use the registry, it has helped them in terms of tracing illegal weapons. It has helped them in terms of investigations. That's important. It does make safer streets.

My message to those who are still opposed to the system is to look at some of the positive examples. We do not want to target legitimate gun owners. We do not want to do that. It is not our intent. I do want to be able to show them that this system is for us all, as Canadians, not to criminalize legitimate gun owners. It's there for all Canadians. We had to work together to get it there. As a result of the experience and the Auditor General's report, we have introduced an action plan to try to reduce costs and make the system work better.

I know I'm going on a little too long, Mr. Chair.

We are reducing costs and improving management. We're streamlining the headquarters. We will streamline the headquarters operation and consolidate processing sites. We want to do that. We're operating on a continuous improvement plan.

We're extending the free Internet service, and that's working well. We're improving access to the toll-free line that, up until about two weeks ago or so, wasn't working. We admit that. The line is now working, and working effectively. We've put the resources in place to make it work.

There's a program advisory committee that we are creating. We've hired a comptroller to keep the finances in line. We are improving and trying to make the system work more effectively.

Will there be bumps in the road? I expect there will be. If there are, Mr. Chair, I want to hear about them directly.

I talked to a gun shop owner the other day. Yes, there were problems. Mr. Baker and I talked about those problems. We're going to address them.

We need to hear of the problems that are out there and make this system work for all. Following the old politics of whether we would have done it differently, I'm sure we would have. We're not there. We're here. We're going to make this system work.

Bill, I don't know if you want to answer.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): I'd like to go on, Minister. There are others. Thank you.

Mr. McKay, you have three minutes, please.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

There was an important question on advertising, I think, that we all wanted answered.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): There are other people who want to ask questions, Mr. Hearn. We're way over. We can come back to that if someone else would like to carry on. We're way over time.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

I know Mr. Elcock will be terribly disappointed if I don't ask him a question, but I'm afraid he's going to have to remain in his state of disappointment. I somehow think that Mr. Elcock would be perfectly happy to sit here for two hours and not have anyone ask him any questions because of the nature of the job.

Minister, and possibly also Ms. McClung, the issue is on aboriginal offenders and their over-representation in the criminal justice system, particularly in the prison system. A number of years ago this House passed a section in the Criminal Code that required any judge sentencing an aboriginal person to take that status into consideration when passing sentence. It was a hugely controversial section of the code, but it did go through. We've now had a number of years under our belts with respect to that section of the code, yet aboriginal people continue to be over-represented in the criminal justice system.

I would be interested in knowing from you, Minister, or from the commissioner, whether this section of the Criminal Code is in fact working. Is there any evidence you can point to that gives this committee, the House, and therefore the people of Canada some satisfaction that this significant intrusion into the principle that all are treated equally before the law is in fact an appropriate redress?

À (1025)

Hon. Wayne Easter: Commissioner, do you want to take that one?

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is indeed a very important issue for us. Aboriginal offenders continue to be over-represented in federal institutions in this country. They continue to access discretionary forms of parole to a lesser extent than is the case with the general male population. When they do get released later in the sentence, although it has improved, the reoffending rate is still higher than the rate of reoffending of the general population.

In essence, we are seeing some progress. More needs to be done. I think we are seeing progress because of the insistence that our programs and our interventions take into account cultures and new forms of intervention. Community leaders and communities themselves are getting involved in helping us to assist aboriginal offenders.

In short, yes, we are seeing progress. We're in conversations with leaders of aboriginal communities across this country to see if indeed more section 84's could be introduced. I'm pleased to say to you this morning that a first section 84 for western Manitoba was concluded in New Brunswick. It is, again, an example of a community taking more charge of aboriginal offenders upon release. We are seeing the effect of the sections afforded to us under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Okay.

Mr. Nystrom, you have three minutes, please.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes. I have a couple of questions for the minister, if I may, Mr. Chair.

I noted that about one in four federal inmates now have hepatitis. We know that most people will be released into the general public, and that creates a bit of a concern. I want to know what is being done to curb or prevent the disease in prison. It's something that has been brought to my attention by a number of folks in the last few weeks.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I will ask the commissioner to come in on this one as well.

You're correct, there is a higher proportion in institutions. You're also correct in saying that, to the greater extent, these people will come out into society.

We have to do everything we can within the correction system to give them proper treatment. The treatment takes a number of steps. I'll ask the commissioner to outline the specifics of how those steps occur.

The object is to try to deal with the offender's health situation. In that way, we not only assist the individual in terms of health, but provide for the betterment of a safe society, in terms of health concerns that may occur as a result of an offender coming out of the correctional system.

Lucie.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Maybe before the commissioner responds, I might ask the minister a second question, on legal aid. I noticed that a large concentration of legal aid funding goes to criminal matters, and there's some reference in the estimates to rectifying this and putting more into civil matters and civil cases. I wonder what the minister's plans are to provide more funding to civil legal aid.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I don't want to sidestep the question, Lorne, but it really is a justice matter. I know what justice tries to do is through the legal aid process, be it criminal or be it civil, to give people equal opportunity under the law where the cost for legal assistance is fairly atrocious in some cases. I want to save time for the commissioner to get back to your first question.

Go ahead, Lucie.

Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you very much.

Hepatitis C, HIV, and hepatitis B are indeed a preoccupation often linked to substance abuse problems, and as members have discussed many times, about 80% of our offenders come to us with very severe substance abuse problems. It is a multi-pronged approach in terms of first of all getting the facts vis-à-vis the rate of infectious disease.

We are trying our best and we are making some progress in seeing many more offenders actually being tested upon their reception to our institutions so we know what we are talking about. We will also reinforce much more with families of offenders and with the surrounding community to sensitize them to the need to signal us when they are, and if they are, under any pressure to bring drugs into the institution. We have seen over the last three quarters of this year many more seizures at the entry of the institution, so we are going to be continuing efforts in that area.

In terms of intervention, a lot of resources are dedicated to programming, as well as control and interdiction activities, within the institution. We are also working with Health Canada to complete with them and to work with them to ensure that, and I'll use their terminology, there is a surveillance system, so that when offenders are indeed identified as carriers, then with Health Canada we are able to sustain their surveillance—and it's really their word—to limit the damages done in the community.

À (1030)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman): Mr. Peschisolido for three minutes.

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister and other guests for appearing before us this morning.

My question deals with road racing. As the minister knows, based on his trip to Richmond and the greater Vancouver area, in Richmond, other than grow operations, road racing has had negative tragic events—Constable Ng killed in Richmond and other tragic deaths. I'd like to ask the minister and perhaps the new commissioner their thoughts on road racing and also on a conversation the minister had with Ward Clapham, the head of the RCMP in Richmond, as to things that can be done to help the RCMP in Richmond and other police forces in the greater Vancouver area deal with road racing and other things we can do to discourage road racing proactively and also reactively after the fact.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you for the question.

Yes, when I was in Richmond, B.C., we met with the RCMP there and with the community. On the top of their mind in that location was the seriousness of road racing and its consequences.

There are a number of things happening in different areas of the country. In your area the RCMP is working with the community to try to educate in schools on the seriousness of this crime. As to the police, the RCMP, I will ask the commissioner to come in on this one because he can explain better than I what the RCMP is trying to do to prevent the consequences of a death as a result of a chase, or whatever, in terms of a road-racing incident.

The national crime prevention strategy is an area where there is, I think, really good work being done at the high school level. There was a project announced in one of the high schools in Ottawa where people who had lost a family member talked to the high school students very emotionally about the consequences of stealing cars and racing—they do interrelate—and the consequences, not only for the people who are killed in the process but also for a young individual of going to jail and a life being destroyed by that infraction.

There is a lot of work done. The best place for the work to be done is certainly at the community level, because it's more important to prevent it than any other approach, I believe.

Commissioner, do you want to add...

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

This is an enforcement issue, but it's more a social issue. The lower mainland gave it prominence, but it's happening right across the country.

The traffic committee of the CACP has a strategy on this. We're talking to everybody across the country. The issue of young men and women in certain parts of the country who don't have the parental assistance or who have no parents and yet have access to these vehicles and finances that enable them to do that is a real problem.

It's about getting out there and educating. In particular, the Province of British Columbia has helped with the amendments to the provincial traffic act that's enabled us to seize vehicles and so on. It's an education issue. You just have to work at this day in and day out.

I'm very pleased to see, especially in the lower mainland after the tragic death of our constable, that the community itself took on a greater role and responsibility in this issue. It requires a broad approach.

I think we're having some success. It is an issue, one of these phenomena that seems to pop up every once in a while in our society. Hopefully we can put it back or cap it as soon as we can. There's a lot of effort being done right across the country.

À (1035)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, thank you.

I just want to mention that I have a copy of the report of the Auditor General of Canada here. She had some real concerns with Correctional Service Canada in one year. I'll quote from the report. It says:

The service has not tested the reliability of the instruments it uses to assess women offenders. There are gaps in the delivery of programs and services both in the institutions and in the community: Correctional Service does not consistently deliver rehabilitation programs on time for incarcerated women offenders. Correctional Service needs to implement a comprehensive, more gender-specific model for treating substance abuse. Correctional Service Canada has difficulty meeting the program and service needs of women offenders in the community.

Also, the lack of substance abuse programs in the facilities was mentioned.

I appreciate that the commissioner has recognized the need for testing for substance abuse for certain...and the concern from CSC on the high percentage of inmates who have hepatitis and HIV. Would she support mandatory testing? I know you mentioned that at entry time when they come into the prison perhaps they should. But would there be a will there? CSC came out and said they believed that the incidences are even higher than what some of the statistics would bring out.

My other question, and this isn't necessarily to the commissioner, is although there hasn't been an official request yet, reports indicate that the RCMP may go on a peacekeeping or rebuilding mission to Iraq. Last night on the news it also mentioned that prison officials may be asked to come too; I don't know whether it's to counsel or what their responsibilities would be. I guess that's part of my second question. In what capacity are the RCMP involved in Iraq? Is CSC involved in? I know there are discussions with prisons in Iraq.

My question to the RCMP is will you be able to carry your firearms in Iraq? There's been some concern that some of our military people there were not issued firearms or weapons in Iraq, although the Minister of Defence said not to worry, because the German soldiers had weapons.

Could you answer these questions, please?

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. I will ask both the Commissioner of Correctional Service and the Commissioner of the RCMP to come in.

In relation to the Auditor General's report on women offenders, in fact the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada spent a considerable amount of time before the public accounts committee yesterday on that very issue, and was very much complimented by your colleague, Mr. Williams, for the good work the CSC has done in terms of meeting the concerns raised by the Auditor General. I think that shows the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada is certainly doing her work and recognizing when there are criticisms out there, which is valid from time to time. We certainly move to fix them. I will ask the commissioner to come in on that in a moment.

On the mandatory testing, I can tell you unequivocally we do not support mandatory testing.

On your third point, on the RCMP and CSC, there in fact have been, I believe, two officials from the RCMP and one senior official with Correctional Service who went to Iraq on an assessment mission. The reason they've been asked to go and be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq is because both our federal law enforcement agency and Correctional Service Canada are recognized around the world as among the best in the world. I don't think a final determination has been made on what will follow from that, but the assessment mission including those people in fact did go to Baghdad.

I'll first turn to the Commissioner of Correctional Service and then the commissioner of the RCMP.

À (1040)

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the reintegration of women offenders, that was the focus of examination by the Office of the Auditor General. The conclusion was the CSC has made significant gains in changing how the conditions of incarceration and supervision for women offenders have been conducted over the last twelve years.

We went from one centralized prison prior to 1990 to five regional sites now, and we are looking to close the co-located units that became necessary in 1996 by the end of this summer. In terms of results, women are accessing the community much earlier than is the case for male offenders, and when they do so, they are much more successful. As a bottom-line result, out of the 795 women who were supervised in the community last year, 771 did not return to crime. Those are extraordinary results, and were commented on as such by the Auditor General.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: With respect to our presence in Iraq, as the minister said, we sent two people there to do a review of what the situation is on the ground. We're part of an international team examining the potential roles we could play. Once that report is prepared we will be giving that to the minister, and then, depending on what role the Government of Canada wishes us to play, we will play our part. So there are several options that are being looked at, but no decision has been made.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some concerns about one aspect of the main estimates. Our government has made very clear its commitment to the voluntary sector, and we've actually signed an agreement with the voluntary sector. I see in the transfer payments that the grants to the not-for-profit organizations and voluntary sector have remained static from the 2002-2003 main estimates to these current main estimates for 2003-2004.

I see that, for instance, the John Howard Society, which in the previous fiscal year received $509,795, for the current fiscal year will be receiving the exact same amount. The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies received $451,807 in the last fiscal year, and the same amount for the current fiscal year. Other national voluntary organizations active in the criminal justice sector received last year a total of $834,542, and the same amount for the current year.

I'm wondering why that is, because we already know the good work our voluntary sector does in assisting us, for instance, in crime prevention and in reintegration of offenders into the community. So I'm wondering why those amounts, our grants to those organizations, are remaining static.

Hon. Wayne Easter: First of all, I'd like to say that I believe there are 14 organizations we contribute grants to in terms of volunteer organizations, and they do extremely good work. There's no question about that. They are extremely valuable to the various aspects within the system they do volunteer work for, and they're extremely valuable to the criminal justice system, putting forward their views and doing the constructive criticism of our system from time to time, and indeed our department.

The fact of the matter is when it comes to funding it's always difficult, and choices have to be made. We'd love to have more funding. We don't have it, so we've had to maintain basic stability in terms of the funding these organizations receive.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you.

You still have half a minute, Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Very briefly, Commissioner McClung, you were asked about the alternative sentencing for our aboriginal first nations and how there has been some improvement but not as much take-up as you'd like to see, and you're bringing in new measures to try to get a bigger take-up. In terms of the take-up that has happened under the use of section 84, I assume you're tracking the success rate of that as compared to the success rate or recidivism rate for similar offenders for similar offences. Do you have any figures you can provide us now, or is it more long term so you can't really provide solid figures right now?

Ms. Lucie McClung: It's more long term, because there are so few right now, but they are already showing success in terms of maintaining the offender in the community, most certainly.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Ms. McClung.

I heard that a pilot project would be carried out in the psychiatric wards of penitentiaries whereby staff meeting with psychiatric patients will no longer be accompanied by a corrections officer. But we know that nurses in this field are mainly women.

I would like to know if a directive has been issued or if this is being implemented. This is something we heard about recently and which is of concern to us. So I would like to know if there is such a pilot project, and you may want to check to find out.

[English]

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll ask the commissioner too, but what it shows is we had to be very careful out there. Hearsay is what it is; it's a rumour. I'll ask the commissioner to specifically answer.

[Translation]

Ms. Lucie McClung: Mr. Chairman, there has been no such directive, quite the contrary. Whoever feels in any way endangered must be accompanied by a corrections officer or if there are intense security concerns in any situation, other measures will be taken.

There is no such psychiatric ward in the Quebec region. Therefore, I would need more information from you. If this is about Archambault penitentiary, I want to stress the excellent work that has been done there. I am not the only one to say so, the psychiatrists from the Institut Philippe-Pinel who have a worldwide reputation say the same thing.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

My other question is about the fact that the budgetary estimates for operating costs of the RCMP seem to be roughly unchanged. However, we heard recently that in the area of contraband policy, there have been many lay-offs, including over 100 officers in Quebec. I do not understand why the number of staff fighting contraband would be reduced, especially since these officers are also used for domestic law enforcement and fighting terrorism. We want to increase security, but we lay off officers. Also, it seems another study is underway that might result in further lay-offs. I would like to hear your answer about this.

[English]

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll have the commissioner come in on this point, but the funding in fact has been increased substantially in budget 2001 for law enforcement and in quite a number of other areas. And $1.7 billion is by no means a small amount of funds for the RCMP and the cross-coordination that goes on with other agencies.

But on the organized crime, biker gangs, etc., it certainly was an issue that was raised at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings. There are working groups working on those issues. The RCMP has been directly trying to challenge that criminal element in a number of progressive ways, but I'll ask the commissioner to come in and give you the specifics.

À (1050)

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

In the last four years the RCMP has received almost a 40% increase in its budget to deal with some of the major challenges we're facing in this country. A lot of those resources have been shared in an integrated way with many of our partners throughout Canada, in Quebec in particular, and so on. We've had just about a 40% increase, so I'm very pleased with that. We can always use more money, but I'm extremely pleased with the generosity of the government in giving us those increases.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

To Mr. McKay, four and a half minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: How about lay-offs?

[English]

The Chair: And I have five left on the list.

Mr. McKay.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I did not get any answer on the lay-offs. It is a clear question.

[English]

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you may or may not detect the source of this question, but apparently New Brunswick has an agreement with Corrections Canada, which is at the point of expiry, or has expired and it's under review. I was wondering whether you or your commissioner could comment on the status of that review and the results of that review.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I'm suspicious. I know the source of that question, Mr. McKay. The fact of the matter is, yes, it has been under review. And I believe a letter has been signed to the effect that it will be continued. I talked to the Minister of Public Safety in New Brunswick last week and gave her that indication. We have in fact signed off on it, so that program will continue.

What it shows is what can really happen when the Government of Canada and provinces work together to achieve the same ends, which are safer streets and safer communities, and in the process reduce costs for the taxpayers of Canada, which is the bottom line.

Do the commissioners want to add something? Go ahead, Lucie.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

Ms. Lucie McClung: In terms of adding more precision, I'd note that there is a one-year extension this year. We have to go back to Treasury Board to present the results of the evaluation. Certainly officials and members of the community of New Brunswick are extremely happy with the results so far. It's anticipated that in the fall we will have the full results.

Mr. John McKay: I'm sure the chair will permit me a small indulgence on my previous question, which is you didn't really respond to whether in fact there are any studies being done with respect to whether the section of the Criminal Code that was amended is actually impacting upon the aboriginal population.

Ms. Lucie McClung: There would be two studies we could point to. In one internal study our research department is looking at the overall benefits or the preliminary results from the sections of the act that pertain to aboriginal offenders. A second, more comprehensive, study will be done through what we call the effective corrections decision, which was a policy decision to enhance the aboriginal and women offenders' capacity to be successful on reintegration. So we will be able to point to two studies within the next, I would say, 12 to 14 months.

Mr. John McKay: Is there any impediment to depositing those studies with this committee?

Ms. Lucie McClung: No.

Mr. John McKay: No. Could you please make note of that? Thank you.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like an answer to the question I asked earlier about how much of the money associated with the gun registry went directly or indirectly to advertising.

Secondly—I'll throw out the second question and then just let them answer—when Mr. Hession appeared before us defending his report, he mentioned that the projected costs for the next couple of years—$110 million, $112 million, whatever—were actually costs associated only with administration and were not reflective of any other costs that might be incurred with enforcement from the RCMP or whatever. Do we have a figure on the total costs, above and beyond administrative costs solely, associated with the implementation of the gun registry?

À (1055)

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you. I'll ask Mr. Baker to come in.

On your first question, on the advertising, since the inception, if I'm correct on this, the cost of advertising as such—but keep in mind that's for encouraging licensing and registration and making sure that the information is out there so they could license and register—was roughly a little more than $29 million.

I'll ask Bill to come into the specifics of your second question. The figure was really $113.1 million, just so we're clear on the figure on part 3.

The Chair: Mr. Baker.

Mr. William Baker: With respect to costs incurred by other government agencies, we do capture those costs that we fund directly--for instance, expenditures incurred by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency or the RCMP. We pick those up because the funds flow through the Canadian Firearms Centre and they are part of the budget. The exception as of this year would be NWEST, which is being transferred to the authority of the RCMP directly.

We have done some work to try to identify what additional costs are out there. We have some preliminary results, but they're not conclusive at this point in time, sir, partly because for many of these other organizations they have not structured their internal accounting systems to track expenditures based on every piece of legislation they're involved in. For instance, we're working to get facts with respect to corrections to try to figure out exactly what Corrections Canada is spending on weapons, or firearms-related offences, when often people are serving time for many reasons, including a weapons-related offence. It's a challenge we're trying to get our heads around.

We have committed to provide fuller cost reporting in this fall's departmental performance report.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have three people left on the list, Mr. Maloney, Mr. Nystrom, and Mr. Hilstrom. I have four minutes left, and I hear rumours that we might have to deal with something else when we're done. So I'm going to go to Mr. Maloney, and I'm going to end the meeting at eleven o'clock so we can deal with the other issues that may come forward.

Mr. Maloney, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get some clarification. When you say you're going to end the meeting at eleven o'clock in order to deal with other items that may come forward, my understanding is that the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at eleven o'clock. So I would suggest that if there are other items to come forward, perhaps you might leave a couple of minutes before eleven, because the meeting is scheduled to adjourn at eleven.

The Chair: Well, I'm going to simply ask the committee about the possibility of a Monday meeting at eleven o'clock. Mr. Maloney is on the list, Mr. Nystrom is on the list, Mr. Hilstrom is on the list. We can do it right now, or we can do it at eleven o'clock. I don't think we're going to get much past Mr. Maloney anyway.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, on the point, if there are suggestions of motions or other meetings and so on, obviously this meeting will adjourn at eleven o'clock, so they should be dealt with before then. Obviously those are debatable motions.

The Chair: I will let Mr. Maloney have the floor, ask his question. That will be the last question. Then we will suspend.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Minister, in your presentation you made reference to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear research and technology initiatives. You touched on that in your response to Mr. Robinson. Could we have a list of those 41 projects?. You didn't mention any quantum of money in reference to that. Are you working with any other foreign nations in collaboration on this?

Basically that's it, in light of the time.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Yes, we are working with others around the world, in particular our American colleagues.

We will forward that information to you, Mr. Chair, and you can distribute it to the committee on the projects that are involved. It is an area I feel we are making considerable progress on. It is an area of concern for everyone around the world because it really relates to weapons of mass destruction.

The Chair: Thank you very much to the panel, to the minister, to the committee members.

I'm going to suspend the committee for the time it takes for the panel to leave. I don't think the TV cameras will be particularly interested in the next portion of our meeting, so I will suspend for two minutes.

Á (1100)

Á (1102)

The Chair: I'm going to reconvene the 47th meeting. We have a little business the committee wants to conduct.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order on a procedural matter, Mr. Chair.

In view of the turn of events yesterday, specifically the filibuster by Mr. Robinson, I would ask the chair, under his authority, to call a meeting to discuss the rules of private members' business. These are new rules, and obviously precedents are being established. It seems strange to me that this process of private members' business could be frustrated in this manner. As a committee, we need to establish a clear precedent that respects the intent of the rule.

So I'm asking the chair, under his authority, to call a meeting for May 26, 2003, to present a motion regarding private members' business. I would suggest 3:30, but I'm flexible on that. The motion will be given well in advance of the proposed meeting.

Perhaps some of the other members have comments to make in respect of that issue.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Toews will appreciate that obviously without consent of this committee, and not having given notice of this particular item, I assume that it would not be proceeded with today. Certainly I have no objection whatsoever to the committee looking at the issue of private members' business at a future date. I would suggest that when the committee reconvenes at its next regular meeting--which I believe is scheduled for May 27, if I'm not mistaken, that's a Tuesday--that the committee, at that point, consider the time to deal with this important question. I'd be pleased to cooperate in establishing an appropriate date to consider it at that time.

The Chair: Anyone else?

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I would like to indicate that the subcommittee on national security is currently scheduled to meet at 3:30 on the 26th.

We'll find a way to deal with that.

The Chair: So you are bringing this to my attention, but you don't see that as a particular problem?

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, It would mean that I can't be here. We'll have to....

The Chair: Anyone else?

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I would like to speak to the issue itself, regardless of the conflicts.

I agree with Mr. Toews that it was never the intention of the rules to allow a filibuster motion to effectively defeat the opportunity for members to decide on the merits of the bill, one way or another.

Accordingly, I would support Mr. Toews in his initiative. It's regrettable that we have come down to this, but this is where we're at. I see that's the only way in which members will actually get an opportunity to vote on this matter.

Á (1105)

The Chair: I want to make something very clear for everybody. We're not discussing Bill C-250 now. If we are, the floor belongs to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Toews wants to take up a question around private members' business and process, as he has outlined. He has asked for us to have a meeting, I guess he said Monday afternoon.

You said you were in conflict. Keep informing the chair—

Mr. Vic Toews: Eleven o'clock is fine, whatever the time.

The Chair: Others?

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, as it happens, that date does not come free for either me or for my colleague, Mr. Nystrom. We would certainly be available on the Tuesday. I would suggest that this matter be dealt with on the Tuesday. There's been no notice whatsoever given of this for this meeting here, as the chair would appreciate. I would suggest that we deal with it on Tuesday, the 27th. If members want to deal with that specific item then, certainly we're prepared to do so, or perhaps we can look, on the 27th, at a date at which it might be considered. It's a broader procedural issue.

The Chair: The chair has the authority to call the meeting. Mr. Toews approached the chair and asked the chair to call a meeting. I want to test it while we're here, rather than have to phone everybody all next week. I'm trying to find out from members of the committee your feelings on this. I would like to hear from everybody so that I don't have to call you during next week.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Committees are masters of their own destiny, as we know. On private members' process, do we have the authority, in fact, to discuss this issue or make decisions, or does that have to come from some other committee within our...

The Chair: At this point the chair has nothing to rule on, so I can't say anything. There is nothing for me to put a decision to, if you like.

I'm aware of the fact that there are timelines involved, so I would wish to at least entertain the possibility that we would have the discussion before the timelines and resolve this by default. I want everybody to understand, and this is not to prejudice anything, I'm simply responding to a request for a meeting.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I would like to encourage the chair to exercise the powers the chair has. I do believe that when we examine the issue before us, we do see that if you look at the rules, the Standing Orders of the House, in fact when we have specific requests by Parliament--and we are an extension of Parliament--I believe it's important that we deal with the question as to what our obligations are. In order to fulfil that obligation, looking at all the time parameters that exist within this place, I think it's important that we do so in a way that will not thwart the process that Parliament has laid out.

So I would encourage you to use your powers in order to call a meeting in order to deal with this so the committee can fully air their concerns.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The House and the House rules indicate to us that we have until Tuesday the 27th to report back on Bill C-250. The deadline, therefore, practically, is routine proceedings, starting at approximately ten o'clock on the morning of Tuesday the 27th. In order to have a report ready, we would have to dispose of it on the previous day. I would take that to be agreed. At some point, if we're going to deal with the House and what the rules require us to do, which is to report back, we have to deal with it on the Monday.

The time doesn't matter to me, but I'm in favour of a meeting to do just that. Any suggestion that we meet on Tuesday to deal with this, we all know practically that would prevent us from reporting back within the deadline. So it has to be Monday. I'm in favour.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, then Mr. Sorenson.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I understand the problem this delay might cause but the motion has been moved verbally. I know you have the authority to impose a delay, but we must take into account the fact that motions may not be available on the Monday. You can call a meeting for Tuesday morning, before the tabling. You can call a meeting for any time, at 8:30 rather than nine in order to report back to the House. In my view, it would be better to do it on the Tuesday morning, which would still allow the tabling of the report. It would suit Svend Robinson and also the Bloc to have this done Tuesday morning, before the regular meeting, which would still allow to go ahead with the report.

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sorenson, then Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I just believe this is such an important thing. We had the filibuster yesterday; we didn't know that was coming. I think it behoves each one of us to open up our schedules so we can be there for whenever the chair calls the meeting. We obviously prefer the Monday. I think the logistics of it give those who are preparing the report ample time. We have to be in consideration of that.

I'm speaking on my own behalf, and I'll let colleagues speak on their own behalf. I know travel on Monday is an issue, but we will be here.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, the agenda seems to have shifted somewhat. Mr. Toews originally indicated the purpose of the meeting was--as I understood it--to discuss the issue of private members' business. I think that's what he indicated, some concerns around procedural questions. What I'm hearing now is something very different, that in some way that discussion would evolve to a discussion of Bill C-250. And members here—

An hon. member: No, it won't.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, just to be clear, members here say no—

The Chair: Let me be clear.

What Mr. Toews has proposed is a meeting to deal with the question of the procedure. He also said in his opening comments he intends to give notice of a motion between now and that Monday, or whenever that meeting might take place. He has not given it, but he intends to. He said that in his opening comments.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chair, obviously Mr. Toews can give notice of any motion he wants, but with respect to Bill C-250, there's already a motion before the committee. So it's not clear to me what's happening here.

If he wants to continue the discussion on his motion, as I understand it, there's no need to give notice of an additional motion. There are motions before the committee now. So perhaps—

The Chair: He's not giving a motion specifically with regard to Bill C-250, because when we go to Bill C-250, you have the floor.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Correct.

Mr. Chair, again it's not at all clear what purpose is being served by holding a meeting on the Monday, as opposed to the Tuesday. If in fact the agenda is to consider the broader procedural questions around private members' business, as Mr. Toews indicated, that's one thing. But if in fact it's an attempt to ram this bill through, to meet a deadline, that's something quite different. And I would have hoped the appropriate notice would have been given.

I appreciate that the chair has powers under the rules to call a meeting whenever he wants, but I would have thought perhaps there would have been some recognition on something like this that appropriate notice would be given.

The Chair: All we're really deciding today is... I think the discussion or the deliberation as to whether we're going to have a meeting is relatively well informed. I can't ask people to bring notices. The reality is, if Mr. Toews wants to bring a notice next Wednesday or Thursday or Friday, he meets with all the rules of the House in terms of giving notice. So if he wants to do that, that's up to him.

I've been asked to hold a meeting. As the chair, I have the authority to call one, and I'm trying to hear from the members of the committee as to their disposition on having that meeting.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If the chair is determined to hold a meeting ahead of the meeting that's scheduled on Tuesday, I've indicated it is impossible for me to be here on the Monday. I have other commitments; I'm in British Columbia. The chair will appreciate there are some logistical difficulties in travelling.

If members are determined this must go ahead, Mr. Lanctôt has made a suggestion that the committee convene earlier on Tuesday.

The Chair: And that's the reason I'm doing this right now—to find out everybody's disposition.

Is there someone else who wanted to... I apologize if I'm falling out of order.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just say I would prefer to have the meeting on Monday, because we obviously have some kind of procedural issue we have to deal with here, and I think it's critical when we're dealing with private members' business. We've had enough trouble with that in the past.

For myself to get here... I too have commitments on Sunday evening at home, and I'm prepared to take the red-eye to get here on Monday morning, so I'm okay with that.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm not quite clear on the reason for the request for the special meeting, but I do accept it is the chair's decision on that. I simply wish to state that if the chair, in his wisdom, decides the meeting should be on Monday, I can make myself available. If the chair decides it's more appropriate to hold it on Tuesday morning, prior to our regularly scheduled meeting, I will make myself available.

Thank you.

The Chair: Is that it?

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: With respect to Tuesday morning, my concern has to do with the logistics of preparing a report to be put on the House order paper. It's just not practical.

The Chair: The other thing I'm going to ask the indulgence of the committee in... I haven't, in my mind, received a clear consensus. I think I have a reasonable consensus on the possibility of a meeting. I don't feel comfortable yet in terms of the time.

I don't want any of this discussion to in any way prejudice the decision I may or may not make around any of these questions that I have the authority to make. Out of respect to a member of the committee who asked for a meeting—and I have the authority—I want to find out from all of the committee. Now that I've heard everybody out, I'll make the decision. Please don't interpret anything I've said as... I have not made any kind of decision. I simply wanted to hear from everybody.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have one other very brief point.

I trust the chair will also consult with the representative of the Progressive Conservative Party on this committee before making a final decision. He'd indicated to me he wasn't able to be present for this discussion, but I trust the chair would consult with him, if there is to be a meeting, on what the timing would be.

The Chair: I have five weeks of work in my constituency that's been left unattended as I've travelled across the country. Mr. Lord called last Saturday for a provincial election in New Brunswick, so I didn't have anything to do. So all next week I'll be calling members trying to come up with a consensus over the phone.

The other thing I would ask, and perhaps I'll do this in front of everybody, because I think it's important this be transparent, the other dilemma is that I would want to engage members in as informed a way as possible. I'm going to have conversations with some of the members of the committee so everybody understands exactly what we're doing. I know not everybody is going to agree, but I think everybody should understand exactly what it is we're doing.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.