JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 23, 1998

• 1005

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): We're back. It seems like we're always back.

Today we have appearing the Honourable Andy Scott, Solicitor General of Canada. He is accompanied by a cast of thousands, including Deputy Solicitor General Jean Fournier; Commissioner Philip J.R. Murray of the RCMP; Commissioner Ole Ingstrup of the Correctional Service of Canada; Chair Willie Gibbs of the National Parole Board; and Director Ward Elcock of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Someday it will be nice to see some women sitting there, Mr. Scott—not that these people aren't qualified. I seem to be the only woman at the table. I thought I'd defend myself, my sex.

I know you have a statement. Go ahead.

The Honourable Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): There are days, Madam Chair, that I'd like to see a woman in this position too.

The Chair: I'm quite happy where I am.

Mr. Andy Scott: Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here today in my capacity to discuss the spending plans and priorities of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

As they've already been introduced, I would simply like to thank my deputy minister and the agency heads who are here with me, and I'd like to take a few moments to outline for all assembled my priorities as Solicitor General.

Madam Chair, it soon became apparent to me after my appointment as Solicitor General that everything in my ministry and everything I do is governed by the imperative of public safety. It is our ministry's mission. It isn't a slogan; it's what we do every day.

By helping to keep communities safe, we ensure that Canadians can live in one of the best countries in the world. My government has a mandate to ensure that Canadians can continue to feel secure in their homes and on their streets. This was a key element of securing our future together and a specific commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

[Translation]

We are determined to take a balanced approach to reducing crime in Canada, including the underlying factors that lead to criminal behavior. We believe that in order to build public confidence in Canada's criminal justice system, Canadians must be able to see the impact. Whether it's safer school yards, fewer crimes on our streets or less fear in our communities, the results must be visible for all to see.

[English]

My pledge is to dedicate my efforts and those of my ministry to what will have the most impact in the communities across Canada, now and in the future. That's why I've chosen to focus my ministry's efforts on effective corrections and organized crime. Before I continue, let me point out that this does not mean that the other things that we do—for example, aboriginal policing, crime prevention, or national security—are not important elements of our work. In fact all of these issues are directly linked to the broader ministry portfolios, which I believe are of special urgency and importance to Canadians.

Firstly, to effective corrections, the government has already cracked down hard on violent offenders, and as Solicitor General I'm supportive of our record. During our first mandate we passed tough new measures to deal with these criminals—for example, the national flagging system to help prosecutors identify high-risk offenders; adding up to 10 years of supervision for certain sex offenders; or legislation to strengthen the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. I'm responsible for keeping violent criminals off our streets, and I am committed to doing this part of my job.

• 1010

But just as I know that prison is the right place and the only place for some criminals, I also know that it's the wrong place for others. Offenders come from the community, and almost all will return there, so the best way of protecting Canadians is by preparing offenders for their release.

That's the business of corrections, to maintain secure facilities and do our best to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens. In fact, later today I will be announcing that the Correctional Service will be hiring 1,000 additional correctional officers to enhance its overall effectiveness. This will help make our institutions more secure and will contribute to a safer and healthier working and living environment for both staff and inmates.

As I mentioned previously, the main business of corrections is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens. We do this during incarceration by providing appropriate programs and treatment, and then later, by gradually releasing offenders into the community where they can take advantage of appropriate programming, while ensuring that they remain under strict control and supervision. I have asked the commissioner of corrections to work toward a better balance in the federal correctional system between the use of incarceration and community programming and supervision.

As far as Canadian corrections is concerned, this is a year of opportunity. After several years of relentless growth, the number of federal inmates is leveling off.

As this committee knows, 1998 marks the year that Parliament will review the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the legislative foundation of Canada's federal corrections and conditional release system. Our research and experience over the past five years indicates the act is working largely as intended. But I want Canadians to be involved in the debate about how to make corrections even more effective, and to this end I recently launched public consultations on the CCRA.

On March 3 my department distributed 650 copies of a consultation paper entitled “Towards A Just, Peaceful and Safe Society”. Copies were mailed to groups and individuals across Canada, seeking input and making suggestions. In addition, we posted this document on our Internet site and invited Canadians to provide their comments electronically.

In addition, on March 27 I met with the members of the National Reference Group on Parliament Hill to discuss the CCRA. The NRG is a group of Canadians with expertise drawn from various aspects of the criminal justice system. This was an opportunity to hear the views of all concerned and how they feel the act is working and where improvements to the legislation might be made or in its implementation.

The results of the public consultation process will be shared with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when you begin your own review of the legislation.

I would like to signal, however, that I've already heard concerns—and this is a very important point I'd like to make today—about accelerated parole review. I believe these concerns are legitimate and they warrant early action to prevent organized crime figures from benefiting from the accelerated parole review. I would be interested in hearing the committee's views today on the matter, in addition to the results of your subsequent deliberations.

Returning to the theme of effective corrections, it can best be described as distinguishing between offenders who need to be separated from society and those who can be better managed in the community. It's not about emptying prisons or putting our children at risk; it's about using alternatives to incarceration for those who pose little if any risk to our communities. Most Canadians would agree that it's not being soft on criminals; it's just common sense.

Canada already has the tools in place to better distinguish between those who need to be separated from society and those who can be safely managed in the community. In fact, we're considered a world leader in risk management and prediction. However, I think it's important to point out that no one can guarantee human behaviour with 100% accuracy. These tools will continue to be refined and improved. We accept that; we do that in order to inform our decision-making.

• 1015

Evidence to date shows that this approach is working, generally. For example, it is not well known that 90% of the federal inmates successfully complete their parole without reoffending or that the success rate for escorted or unescorted temporary absences—that is when offenders are allowed to leave a penitentiary for a limited period of time—currently stands at 99%.

Better decision-making also requires that everyone have access to the same information. That is why another key ministry initiative is a better system of integrated justice information. Our goal is to have all partners in Canada's criminal justice system using the same data when making decisions about a particular offender, from the street cop to the parole officer.

Effective corrections does not end at the prison gate. There is no point in identifying non-violent, low-risk offenders who don't need to be locked up unless we can provide safe alternatives to incarceration. This could mean restitution to the victim, community service, or more time spent in the community to hold down a job or go to school, but always under control and supervision.

As the minister responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board, I am determined to tackle the special challenges posed by aboriginal and women offenders. All Canadians should be deeply disturbed when 3% of our population accounts for 12% of all incarcerated federal offenders. I am also committed to responding to the special needs of female inmates.

[Translation]

I will continue to seek creative solutions with the provinces to make our $2 billion correctional system work even more effectively. To me, that's what building a stronger Canada is all about. We've already begun this process through meetings of federal/provincial/territorial Ministers responsible for Justice, whose work is described in our "Corrections Population Growth" reports.

[English]

On April 15, 1998, I also announced an innovative agreement with the Province of New Brunswick that will enable our two levels of government to harmonize correctional programming. If we can improve the way government deals with offenders in one province, there is no reason we cannot do the same in the other jurisdictions.

The government's long-term goal is to reduce the likelihood of people ever going to prison, which is why crime prevention is so very important. If we can reach children early enough and focus our resources on youth at risk, then we stand a better chance of keeping them out of prison as they grow older. With this in mind, Justice Minister McLellan and I intend to announce details of a federal crime prevention initiative later this spring. This will fulfil a commitment made in the government's plan, “Securing our Future Together”.

On to organized crime. As I noted earlier, another of my key priorities is tackling organized crime. The reality of organized crime is quite different from the popular image. Make no mistake, it is big business and it is bad business and it threatens Canada's social fabric and economic well-being.

Many of the problems that Canadians see on a daily basis are linked to organized crime. Whether it is a drug-related burglary, a carton of smuggled cigarettes, a telemarketing scam, or juvenile prostitution, it is all part of the same problem. While organized crime has many faces, the danger it poses to our communities is very real. That is why organized crime has become a major preoccupation of the government and a key priority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

During our first mandate, the government took several steps to strike hard at these criminals. The anti-smuggling initiative, the Witness Protection Program Act, integrated proceeds of crime units, and our anti-gang legislation are all examples of that effort. But to win this war we will need strong national leadership, more tools for the police, and continued and improved coordination.

National leadership means setting a course and encouraging closer cooperation. We have to be organized to stay ahead of the criminals, and that is where the Solicitor General can play an important role.

• 1020

Leadership also means giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need to continue their fight against organized crime. The ability of the police to detect, prevent, and deter money-laundering activities is an important element in this fight and one of the key ingredients in the federal government's organized crime strategy. To that end, I intend to circulate a consultation paper on a proposed anti-money-laundering framework. It is also my intention to share that document with colleagues on this committee. The consultation process represents an important step forward in implementing our strategy.

Criminal investigations involving money laundering and cross-border crimes can be complex. That's why we're working with our partners in the law enforcement and financial communities to develop options and find the right balance between an effective reporting scheme and protection of individual privacy.

We're looking at possible reforms to the national police services offered by the RCMP based on consultations conducted over the past several months. These include our legislation to create a national DNA data bank, plus changes to existing programs such as the Canadian Police Information Centre. I will be reporting on these and other efforts as part of my second annual statement on organized crime.

National leadership and tools will not be enough unless we concentrate our efforts. That's why I intend to devote so much of my effort as Solicitor General to encouraging partnerships among the police, prosecutors, governments and the private sector, both at home and abroad. Here in Canada we've already established the national coordinating committee on organized crime, which brings together my ministry with the police, the provinces, and other regional officials to better coordinate our activities.

Indeed, on Friday I'll be meeting with police, prosecutors, and provincial representatives here in Ottawa at a national workshop on organized crime. You should also be aware that I'm planning a meeting of my federal, provincial, and territorial counterparts later this year to discuss what more Canada can do to deal with this serious problem.

Organized crime doesn't know borders. It certainly doesn't respect the 49th parallel, because we have firsthand experience with the problem of transnational crime. That's why it's so important also to coordinate our efforts with those of our international partners.

I'm looking forward to the second Canada-U.S. cross-border crime forum, where Attorney General Janet Reno and I will be meeting along with key officials to discuss what new actions we can take to disrupt organized criminal activity on both sides of the border.

Governments can coordinate their resources to combat transnational criminal activity in many ways, including their intelligence sources. This is where the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can contribute to the wider effort, by sharing strategic intelligence with the police and other decision-makers. At the international level, Canada already works closely with the United Nations, the G-8, Interpol, and the Organization of American States.

In May, the Prime Minister will be participating with other heads of state at the Birmingham summit of G-8 countries. Organized crime is one of the themes on the agenda, and my ministry is actively involved in the summit preparations.

By working in partnership both here in Canada or with our allies abroad, we can defeat organized crime. We all face the same challenge and are united behind a common cause. It only makes sense that we should work more closely together.

To sum up, Madam Chair, my ministry continues to make great strides in ensuring that Canada remains one of the best places and indeed one of the safest places in the world to live.

[Translation]

We will continue to achieve our goals and we will do this by focusing our efforts on the priorities I've outlined today, namely ensuring the effectiveness of the correctional system and fighting organized crime.

[English]

Madam Chair, this concludes my remarks. I am very pleased to be here and I look forward to answering the committee's questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Cadman, I'm going to start with eight minutes and see where that gets us. Go ahead.

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

First of all, thank you, Minister and your officials, for appearing today.

My first question concerns an issue that may not be important to some people, but it certainly is of very great importance to my friends at E division in B.C. It concerns the ViCLAS system. You and I have already discussed this briefly. This powerful crime-solving tool may soon be rendered totally ineffective or absolutely lost altogether because of resourcing and funding problems. It has been mandated in Ontario and now it looks as though B.C. is going in that direction, to possibly mandate it.

• 1025

Unfortunately, violent offenders and sex offenders don't respect provincial boundaries. Your government has budgeted in excess of $30 million for crime prevention. I'm just wondering what you're prepared to do to make ViCLAS a truly national system that will benefit all Canadians. I would like to hear your response.

Mr. Andy Scott: First of all, my arguments for more resources will be enhanced by the support of the Reform Party. I think I'll let the commissioner speak to this as well, but one of the points that I made is that we have to make sure that we have all of the information that's necessary to do this in a coordinated fashion. I think it would ring very hollow, frankly, to talk about close cooperation and then see those very instruments that we use to facilitate that cooperation not resourced.

On the question of the crime prevention initiative we're undertaking, I would probably separate those two, if that's the suggestion that I hear you making.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I see ViCLAS as a preventative tool as well as an investigative tool.

Mr. Andy Scott: I see that as well, in the same way that I guess effective corrections is crime prevention also.

But the crime prevention initiatives that we announced are following a great deal of good work that was done by the National Crime Prevention Council. They really appealed to us to concentrate our efforts for the most part to early intervention in young kids, and so on. I think most people respect very much the work of the National Crime Prevention Council. I was a member of the health committee, and they appeared before us. Everybody was quite moved by the quality and the determination that they put into this. I think it's important to show some degree of continuity, otherwise we do these things over and over.

So I hear what they have to say, and I'm supportive of it, frankly. I think that our crime prevention initiatives should be more directed toward early intervention and those kinds of things.

Having said that, this doesn't diminish my commitment to making sure that we have the instruments to share information between levels of government and between agencies. It could be between agencies within the same government, actually.

Commissioner, is there's anything more about ViCLAS that you might want to say?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That's fine, Commissioner. I'll have an opportunity to ask you next week about this. I just want to get on with some other issues with the minister. Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge the presence of Sylvain Leduc's family in the room today. This is the young man who was murdered in 1995. They have some serious concerns about CSC, and I think those concerns are shared by me and many others.

John Richardson was recently convicted, along with two other adult males, in the murder of Sylvain. Now he had prior convictions for robbery and extortion, some of which were committed while on probation. He was serving a 30-month sentence in a maximum-security facility for procuring. He was denied parole earlier because the parole board considered him a risk to commit a violent offence. He was on statutory release for only 50 days before he was involved in Sylvain Leduc's murder. He violated release conditions almost immediately, and he never reported to the parole officer. When he did contact the board, he was merely encouraged to turn himself in.

Now I realize the parole board cannot prevent statutory release unless CSC recommends detention, which they chose not to do in this case. So I have three questions. I would like you to answer these questions, sir.

First, are you able to confirm those facts? Second, are you satisfied with the actions of CSC in this case? If you're not satisfied, what do you intend to do about it? Third, in light of cases like that of Hector and Russell, who were violent parolees who have gone on to commit heinous crimes, Canadians have little faith in CSC to act in the best interests of public safety and to investigate this themselves.

Now the Leduc family is requesting an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Will you commit to such an inquiry today? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Mr. Andy Scott: On the question of my commitment to an independent inquiry, I can't do that alone. First of all, I think that one of the things I've come to understand in this job is that I too often find myself discussing public policy in the face of terrible tragedies. These are human tragedies, and I don't think any of us here.... Certainly it isn't at all easy for me. You're always at a loss to somehow explain away something that happens that is this awful. I have a family myself, and children. In that context, I acknowledge that anything I might choose to do, or any way I choose to respond, rings hollow, and for that I apologize.

• 1030

The fact remains, when there is a decision taken that, whether it's CSC or the National Parole Board, with hindsight people would rather not have taken, there is a process in place to conduct an investigation. It is not a public inquiry, as you have mentioned, and as other people have requested.

I think until such time as there has been an occasion or an opportunity to conduct.... I'm sorry. In this particular instance, that investigation has taken place because of the original circumstances. There were two recommendations made as a result of that investigation. I was thinking of the Hector case as well. Action has been taken that would allow the service to include the recidivism and the number of crimes as part of their consideration in addition to the gravity of those crimes.

I don't know what else I can say to my honourable colleague or what else I can say to the family beyond the fact that I don't think anybody can defend a system in the face of these kinds of incidents, but neither can we offer assurances to anyone that you can anticipate human behaviour 100%.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister.

I guess my closing remark this round would be that we appreciate that people do make mistakes. We understand that human beings are fallible. The only problem is, when mistakes are made at your level, or at the level of CSC or the parole board, the consequences quite often mean serious injury or death to an individual. I think we have to be a lot more open in the way we deal with the inquiries when things go wrong. That's why we're requesting a public inquiry.

Mr. Andy Scott: I agree that we have an obligation because of the serious consequences of decisions we take. I think it weighs heavily on the people who take the decisions, too. That's the reason, I think, we referred a couple of cases to this committee earlier.

I am looking at ways to be more inclusive in terms of bringing transparency to the process so that the public can understand why things are done. But again, in the face of a particular instance, in the face of a particular case, I know that's little comfort.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): First of all, I would like to thank the Solicitor General and his officials for coming here today.

I'll get right to the point. When the Subcommittee on National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met on April 16, 1997, Mr. Elcock, who is here today, provided several interesting answers to questions that were put to him.

He stated the following and I quote:

[English]

“I took the decision that we would not pay the bilingual bonus”.

[Translation]

Ever since I was little, I've been told that Canada is a bilingual country and people are always singing the praises of bilingualism. My question is quite simple: do you agree with the decision of one of your services not to award a bilingualism bonus to its employees?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: First, maybe I'd give the director an opportunity to defend the position.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do you agree with this decision?

• 1035

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I'm a former co-commissioner of official languages in the province of New Brunswick. I understand very well the obligation this government has to the provision of services in both official languages. But I also recognize, very practically, that very often it's the case that you offer this in order to get people to take programs and so on, and very often you don't have to offer it because you don't have that requirement. I think it's important in a very practical way for the director to speak to the details, because as a matter of policy there are times when one has to take specific action in order to meet those needs but it doesn't always have to be the case.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I will raise these questions again early next week when we will be meeting again with Mr. Elcock. I would have liked to know where you stand on this issue. You seem to be saying that we need to be practical, and that there is nothing absolute in any of this. Continuing along the same lines, Mr. Elcock said that he could not pay out bilingualism bonuses, and again I quote:

[English]

“without impairing the operational abilities of the services”.

[Translation]

That is how he responded. Do you not feel that the operational abilities of CSIS are limited as a result of the inability of anglophones to understand and speak French?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I think that we have to meet the requirements to deal with what we do in both official languages, and that's the reason why I think it's an operational administration issue. I am absolutely committed to the concept of the obligations, and in fact well known for that, in terms of the official languages policy of this country. I come from a province that is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. I know this policy quite well; I used to administer it in our province. I'm saying that it is a matter of a policy instrument, of making sure there are a number of tools available so that you meet the needs of the policy. I presume that what the director is speaking of is the fact that if those instruments are not necessary to meet those needs then they wouldn't necessarily be brought to bear, but if they are then they should.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: From a practical standpoint, however, how does one get someone interested in taking a French course? Why would someone be motivated to learn another language if there is no financial or monetary incentive to do so? The purpose of the bilingualism bonus was to encourage people to learn another language, further to a decision made by the federal government long before I was born. If a service refuses to pay that bonus, should we view the program under which a financial incentive has been awarded for the past thirty years as a failure?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: No, quite the contrary. First of all, in terms of an incentive, if there isn't any monetary incentive, I would invite you to visit my province. Nobody gets a monetary incentive and there are waiting lists to take courses in the second language constantly. It becomes a question as to whether there's a need to use that policy. Again, in the event that the need exists I would encourage it, and if that need doesn't exist and we can meet the requirements of that policy and even go beyond them without it, then I would support that as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Have you allocated specific sums of money in your budget to possible future bilingualism bonuses?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I'd have to refer to the director in this case. We're talking about the administration of his department.

Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): I'm not quite sure what the question is intended to mean. We don't pay a bilingual bonus. There would of course be no part in our budget for the payment of bilingual bonuses, since we don't pay it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand you correctly, you have decided not to earmark any money for this purpose and you have no intention of doing so in the future, even though the minister maintains that he is quite sensitive to this issue and will do everything in his power to ensure that this service is bilingual. Even though you come under the jurisdiction of a minister who claims to want to do everything possible to make his service as bilingual as possible, this doesn't affect you whatsoever. At least that's the conclusion that I've drawn.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: If I may, given the fact that the director has responded to the administrative question that it is not there, I think it doesn't do a service to the ability to provide service in both official languages by tying that directly to the availability of a bilingual bonus.

• 1040

The reality is that it is an instrument that is available to cause the capacity to exist. However, we are committed absolutely to the provision of services consistent with the Official Languages Act of this country. I am personally committed to this in a big way. And in the event that the bilingual bonus is a requirement to meet those needs, then I will be pursuing its use. However, I do not wish that anybody would be of the view that the only way you can meet those needs is in this fashion. That's the point.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, when CSIS was created, RCMP employees were given assurances that they would continue to receive the same benefits when they became CSIS employees. Furthermore, according to a recent decision, the Gingras decision, it was decided that RCMP employees were entitled to receive the bilingualism bonus retroactively. We have no problem with that decision and everything is proceeding smoothly. However, it would seem that CSIS employees who are former RCMP employees will not be entitled to this bonus retroactively. Doesn't this contradict the promise that was made to them in 1984 when they were told that they would keep all of the benefits that they enjoyed while members of the RCMP?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: First of all, I'll let the commissioner speak to the specific administration in the RCMP. But let me just say I'm advised that the representation of francophones in CSIS is higher than that of the public service generally, in fact quite high. I will see that these documents are available to you.

A voice: How high?

Mr. Andy Scott: Thirty-seven percent of CSIS employees in recruitment in 1997-98 and 36% overall, which is higher than the general average in the public service.

On the question of the RCMP, again, I would allow the—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'll be raising this matter again at our next meeting with the commissioner. You don't come here often, but we greatly appreciate this opportunity to chat with you.

Changing the subject, this year marks the 125th anniversary of the RCMP.

Mr. Andy Scott: That's correct.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Major celebrations are being planned. How much has been budgeted for these festivities?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes, it is the 125th anniversary of the RCMP, and there will be a wonderful opportunity for Canadians to show their support for an institution I think we're all proud of.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: How much?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: The budget, Phil, the specific number—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: May I ask the rest of my questions?

[English]

The Chair: This is the last question for this. Go ahead.

Mr. Andy Scott: They've not set aside a specific amount of money. There's a committee that's responsible in the RCMP. I'm meeting with them from time to time. Most of the activities take place of course out of local detachments and they have an ongoing operation, which includes for instance the musical ride and so on, which obviously would take advantage of the 125th.

I would encourage you to get in touch with the local detachment of the RCMP and join the party.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Solicitor General, it's good to see you here.

The Chair: If they don't get in touch with you personally.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Sorry, Peter, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Mancini: It's good to see you here with your officials. I think the last time we had an occasion to chat I was in front of a camera in Sydney and you were in front of the camera here. So it's good to see you face to face.

I'm pleased to hear you say today that you are determined to tackle the special challenges posed by aboriginal and women offenders and you're committed to responding to the special needs of female inmates. I'm particularly happy to hear that, because in discussions with the Elizabeth Fry Society in my own province, I was surprised and kind of shocked—and I hope I'm wrong on this—to find out that there is one halfway house for women in this country, one single halfway house in the whole country.

• 1045

When we talk about providing people who are released with the tools necessary to reintegrate them into society, can you indicate to me what steps the department is taking to rectify that situation? When we can expect to see some change in that?

Mr. Andy Scott: I thank you very much for the question. It speaks really to the heart of the specific issue in terms of female offenders. It also speaks to the other issues you mentioned, and I think it speaks to the issue of corrections generally.

I believe the future in the area of effective corrections is dependent on our capacity to better distinguish between those people who need the kind of intervention that is represented by a large federal institution and those who don't necessarily require it, or those people who, after a time, could in fact be better served in the community.

We have the second-highest rate of incarceration, after the Americans, in what we would consider, I think, the developed world. I think it's important for everybody to know that fact. We have some 130 per 100,000. That means much of our resources are being taken up by incarceration.

If we agree—and I think at some level there's a consensus in the country, although we may disagree as to who and how and so on—that there are people currently incarcerated who don't need to be, then clearly the solution to the problem is getting that piece right so that we can free up the resources, so that we can build the community infrastructure to do exactly what you've proposed.

So I think we agree. If we can elevate the confidence Canadians feel in our capacity to do that, then I believe most Canadians would agree that this is the most effective way to undertake this business.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that people generally who come into the system, in the large majority, leave the system. They go back to Fredericton or Sydney or Wild Rose. My job, I think, and the job of the correctional system, is to cause those people to be less likely to do ever again what they did before.

All evidence suggests the way to do that is to build the type of community infrastructure that would allow people, in a controlled and case-managed way, to have that happen. There are sometimes tragic results of the risks involved in that, but ultimately, at the end of the day, the people are going to come back. There will be risks—and greater risks, in my opinion—associated with not doing it in either a controlled way or gradual reintegration.

Having said that, I am committed to moving in that direction as much as I can, but I recognize a certain caution has to be exercised. We have to do this in the context of public confidence as well. I too spend a great deal of time meeting with organizations such as Elizabeth Fry. I have great respect for the work they do, and agree that we need to have more community infrastructure. The only way we're going to be able to do that, I think, is to deal with the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay. I think we agree on that. I guess I'm looking for something a little more specific.

Can you indicate to me what portion of resources or how many resources you can see moved, within the next year to two years, in the direction of ensuring that there are more halfway houses and more programs particularly for women, who have different needs coming out of prison? What percentage of the resources can we see directed in that particular direction?

Mr. Andy Scott: I have two answers. I apologize that it's not specific enough, because I know it isn't, but the fact is, we're dealing with other jurisdictions. I don't want to pre-empt discussions taking place with provinces in terms of engaging them in this exercise.

The other thing is that we have a very significant decision to be made with regard to women in Canada in terms of how we're going to deal with that question. We're hoping to have some decision taken by the end of May. It's very difficult, in advance of that decision, to know exactly where we're headed.

• 1050

I can tell you generally where we're headed in terms of how many dollars, what percentage of the total budget, how many halfway houses we might have as a result of this. It would be unfair, frankly; it would be misleading. At this point, while we want to move in that direction generally, we are really discussing...this is such a very small number of women in the federal system that we're really dependent on our negotiations, particularly with the provinces.

Mr. Peter Mancini: You indicated today that there are a thousand additional correctional officers going to be hired over the next period of time. Because of the disproportionate number of aboriginal people and minority groups in our prisons, is there any indication that the people who will be hired will reflect the prison population? Will there be any sensitivity training for them to understand the cultures of the people in those prisons?

Mr. Andy Scott: I'm sure both. We're committed to this. I opened the facility in Hobbema last fall. Inside of the effective corrections initiative that we've undertaken, this is probably one of the most important.

I've had a couple of meaningful consultations, one in Winnipeg, one here, around these issues. I hope to explore it further, not just as it relates to our ministry but also as it relates to the entire criminal justice system.

As far as the thousand correctional officers are concerned, we will be engaged in both the hiring exercise and the training exercise. This is something we do now, and it will certainly be the case in this case.

Perhaps Commissioner Ingstrup wants to add to that.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Certainly, Mr. Minister and Madam Chair.

We will use this opportunity, which is really a great opportunity for us, to improve on our record for visible minorities, aboriginal people, and women employees to the extent that is possible. That's not to say we're not doing quite well. I and my minister think we can do better than this, and here's a wonderful opportunity to go that way.

Also, if you look at what we did in Hobbema, you will see that we did try to give certain groups of people particular training to make them capable of competing on a level playing field. We will do that again.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

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

I want to add my thanks to the minister and his officials for being here. We spend a great deal of time on this committee talking about you when you're not here, so it's wonderful to see you here.

Mr. Andy Scott: I know lots of people who tell me what you said.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm sure it gets back to you.

The Chair: We can get it all on the master tape anyway.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Minister, yesterday in the committee we heard what I can only describe as startling testimony from a member of the National Parole Board. This member stated that senior CSC officials are under no statutory obligation to provide a full criminal background of an offender who is released to somebody in close contact with that offender.

Various cases throughout the country have highlighted that. You mentioned one of them, the Russell case in British Columbia. There's the Gartton case. Given that it appears that the absence of such a policy is at least partially responsible or attributed to the fact that murders occurred while individuals were on parole—the murder of a 15-year-old girl in 1987 in the Gartton case and a British Columbia woman in 1996 in the Raymond Russell case.... There were problems identified by the CSC investigations division in the report they did when things went wrong. I'm sure you're familiar with this report.

My question to you, firstly, is whether or not you think there should be a policy that will protect people. Will you as minister responsible for both the National Parole Board and Corrections Canada confirm that this is in fact the case, that there is no specific legislative or policy requirement for parole officers to inform people in the community who are willing to offer accommodation to offenders on conditional release or offenders who may be coming into their home or working for them? Because it appears quite obvious that the information sharing that should be taking place is not taking place, and that perhaps the privacy rights of convicted criminals in this case may be taking precedence over innocent people in the country.

• 1055

Mr. Andy Scott: I think what we need to do.... And this is all consistent with a broader issue that I've just been through with the member, the other member, from Nova Scotia—I was going to say Peter, but that would have screwed me up too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: I just think of them as “Peter Left” and “Peter Right”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I guess I'm on the right.

Mr. Andy Scott: Quite frankly, I'm not sure there's anybody in the Maritimes who's on the right, but—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andy Scott: —we'll move on.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Speak for yourself.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andy Scott: With respect to the question, I'm convinced that we're not going to be able to do corrections effectively in this country without public confidence. That is why I'm committed to a very thorough and open discussion around the CCRA. That is the reason we had a probably more open exercise around the inquiry at Somass in British Columbia. That is the reason officials appeared before this committee to discuss specific cases. That is the reason we have engaged a national reference group. Because I really believe—you're right—that we need to do this right.

I don't want to make specific commitments, because for each case mentioned there are details that need to be included. I can only say generally that we do need to do a much better job of causing Canadians to feel that they know what's going on in the system and that they're aware when those kinds of risks are presented.

I don't want to give you the wrong impression: there will always be limits on those kinds of things. And I'm sure there are places where there are limits people would all understand as well.

I do think it's critical to gain the confidence of Canadians, because if people are gradually reintegrated into a community that is resistant because there is a fear, much of that fear, frankly, is greater, perhaps, than reality suggests it should be. We've gone through this before, I'm sure: crime rates in Canada are going down, yet the fear in Canada is going up. I think that's very much an obstacle to the successful reintegration of people.

So I'm very much there. We need to take the actions that are necessary to respond to the very issues you put. Having said that, there are limitations, and as far as speaking to specific cases, that's not possible. In each case there are circumstances, and I don't think it's appropriate, perhaps, to get into those kinds of details.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Minister, I've referred to specific cases, but I guess what my general question is about and the task we're charged with at this committee is to look at possible changes that are going to improve the system and certainly improve the confidence. That's a given. But it appears that a policy is required here that would allow for the full disclosure of a criminal record. I'm talking about the disclosure of a record that would indicate violence, murder, to a person in a community who is reaching out and is prepared to participate in the rehabilitative process, is prepared to take a convicted offender into the home or hire him to work in the store.

My general question to you is should there not be something legislated that would ensure there is going to be full disclosure, not simply a process of information exchange that might lead to some confusion? A person should know if someone capable of murder is living under his roof. Do you agree?

Mr. Andy Scott: I think this is a part of the confidence-building exercise I spoke to. I look forward to having a full discussion of the issue during the CCRA review.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

Later this afternoon, the committee is going to hear from the correctional investigator, who essentially acts as an independent ombudsman, some would say as an “advocate” for federal inmates. So individuals we discussed here, like Raymond Russell, Michael Hector, and John Richardson, who was mentioned by my colleague from the Reform Party, all federal inmates, have a person to turn to when they need something or when there might be a problem in the corrections system.

• 1100

My question to you, Mr. Minister, is who do the families—the families of the victims, the families such as the Leduc family, who are here with us this morning—who do they have to turn to when they have problems with the corrections system or the parole system? Who's the ombudsman for the victims of crime when they want truthful answers about what's happening in the process instead of some sort of self-examination by the board when something goes wrong?

Given the commitments of the Minister of Justice on Monday regarding a national victims office, will you now, as Solicitor General, push to expand the mandate of the national victims office to include corrections and parole, to allow for that full exchange of information for victims of crime?

Mr. Andy Scott: It's already on the record that one of the things we want to look at in the context of the CCRA is that, and it's important.

As a part of the national reference group, I've met with CAVEAT and other organizations that are engaged in this, and it's a total criminal justice issue. I think we both know this. At the time of arrest, at the time of the crime, it's important that we broaden the entire concept of victims' service and meeting those needs to include the whole system. In fact many will argue it's the front end that's the most important.

I'm very supportive of the position that's been taken by the Minister of Justice, and in fact the need to deal with that very specific issue is already part of the discussion paper for the CCRA review.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks a lot, Mr. MacKay.

I'm going to start with Mr. DeVillers, and I hope we're going to share our time on this one.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Of course, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

You've mentioned the CCRA, and in your presentation you said you sent out 650 copies of the consultation paper, you met with the reference group, and you'll be sharing that information with the committee, but you also indicated that you already had some concerns about the accelerated parole review. I wonder if you'd expand on that and maybe share other information that you might have received already.

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you very much for bringing up the question of accelerated parole review. It's come to my attention and it's been pointed out by many members here and many others inside the organization that we need to look at it.

There's some concern about the provisions of accelerated parole review in that it allows people specifically associated with organized crime to use the provisions of that section. That's been pointed out by many people. I've had questions in the House and it's come up during the reference group meetings quite often.

I've been advised by the committee chair that we won't be able to get on with the CCRA review this spring, but rather it will probably only take place in the fall, if I'm accurate in my information. It concerned me a little bit that we may want to start the process of that, but I didn't want to do it, because I do take this process very seriously. I spent my first four years in Parliament as a very active member of this process, and good work is done here. I didn't want to do anything that would suggest I was undermining that exercise.

So I put it to you, in fact. I'd like to proceed on that very specific and narrow piece, but I wouldn't want to do that if it meant somehow the exercise would be in any way diminished.

It is a subject of considerable concern to many Canadians. Specifically—I'm sure everybody is aware of the details of this, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I technically make a mistake, but I think I have it down—the reality is that in the correctional system, with some exceptions according to sentencing and so on, but generally speaking, when a sentence is given, at one-third of the sentence is the first opportunity for someone to appeal to the parole board for early release.

At two-thirds of sentence there's a reverse onus, and it's statutory release in the event that nobody can make a case otherwise. That overstates it and oversimplifies it, but for purposes of this, it captures it generally.

• 1105

The accelerated review provisions simply state that in some instances where there's a low-risk, non-violent offence—and there are very specific definitions as to who can apply for this—there is an early or accelerated review at one-sixth of a sentence. I think it's designed to deal with people who are in the system for very low-risk offences and begin the process of reintegration.

Please understand, they're still serving a sentence and the conditions that are placed are very stringent in many cases, and may have requirements for residency and so on. But they are basically eligible for that.

I'm concerned, and others are concerned, that perhaps that provision is being abused in a very small number of cases. While the crime in itself may on the surface be low-risk and non-violent, it may be part of a broader plan and people may be using that provision strategically. I think most people agree. I'm at your mercy on that. I don't want to speak for the committee, but I think in discussions I've had with most, you would support me in proceeding—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Would one possible solution be to review those crimes to attempt to eliminate any instance where that type of abuse could occur?

Mr. Andy Scott: There are provisions that would prevent it now. For instance, the judge in sentencing can say somebody could not be considered for parole until 50% of their sentence was served. There are provisions there. I think we need to deal with this very specifically and very narrowly.

How we would do this is a matter of figuring out how to actually capture the group. My point is that I would like to begin the process to do that now. It may be by virtue of other legislation that gives definition to crimes that are associated with organized crime, for instance. There are a number of ways to do it. At this point, I'm simply looking for your response as to whether or not I should begin, because I wouldn't want to do that, given the fact we will be doing a very complete review of the CCRA and I'm very committed to it being a very public review. I just didn't want to undermine the credibility of that exercise by proceeding with something that is a critical piece of that review, without you.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Do I need to share my time now, Madam Chair?

The Chair: You don't need to, but it would be nice of you.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I will volunteer to share my time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, you mentioned that the fear of crime is unrealistic, and I think it is, in the sense that not only do we incarcerate more people, with the exception of the U.S., but we incarcerate more young offenders than the Americans do. I think it has to do with the commercialization of crime by the media, Hollywood, and all sorts of politicians.

In terms of the perception of public safety, one area that is a problem is the psychiatric patients who are out in the community and do not take their medication. Somehow we have to get a handle on that. That means you will have to talk to your colleagues, the ministers of health.

Mr. Andy Scott: I think it simply speaks to the need to recognize what a broad subject we're dealing with. That's one of the reasons why I think we need to bring the debate out into the public more. It isn't something people generally want to have big public debates around, because so much of it is so emotional and quite frankly awful. So people have a tendency to say “Why would you ever want to have a big visible public debate around such awful things?”

The fact is, it is a big part of public policy in this country and it's very much misunderstood. I'm sure most people in Canada don't know that we have the second-highest rate of incarceration in developed countries.

As a starting place, in terms of this broader debate, is there any evidence that incarcerating more people for longer periods of time has the effect some would suggest it does? It doesn't seem to. The Americans don't seem to have solved their crime problem by putting people in tougher jails for longer periods. They have much more crime than we do. Again, I don't say that with an agenda; I say it as an observation and welcome the challenge, if it's true.

• 1110

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: With young offenders, we incarcerate two and a half times as many as the Americans do. So we lead everybody. The other thing I want to just touch on is crime prevention. We're putting in $32 million, which is one dollar per Canadian. We're hiring 1,000 correctional officers, which is probably going to cost better than $60 million. This $32 million is a very, very small amount of money. Is there a commitment for us to increase that amount in the following years?

Mr. Andy Scott: It's my own view that the best way to maximize the value of this $32 million is to use it to leverage more money out of the community and the provinces. I've made this point to the provinces and municipalities. We are engaged with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to try to sort of mobilize the community. In fact, one of the major preoccupations of our crime prevention strategy will be to see to it that this is driven from the community up.

The $32 million is a modest beginning. I accept all of the arguments that we can make savings in the back end of the system by dealing with the problems in the front end. I live by that. The reality is that it's a chicken and egg phenomenon. As long as we're tying up the resources that we're tying up on the back end, then they're denied at the front end.

So you generally have to work your way through this. The 1,000 correctional officers we'll be hiring will be hired to cause us to be able to engage in more dynamic security so as to bring a level of security to the system that allows us to do what corrections is about, which is changing behaviour.

When you're in a position where your numbers are up—we acknowledge that this is so—you end up basically becoming, generally speaking, more concerned with the security and stability of the system rather than getting on with the job of changing behaviour. I think this will help us, or go a long way to help us, change that. So on both points, colleague, I don't disagree, but I think we do have a balance to find, and I'm hoping that we've found it.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: This committee wants at least 5%. It's in our report that we tabled in April. I'm just letting you know that. I look forward to working with you on getting that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We're going to have a short time. Five minutes.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'll be as brief as I can. I'll stick to one issue. I hope that we can have this gentleman back with his gang. That's a bad word. Let's call it the crew that surrounds him.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It's all right, he's from Alberta, so he can say that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Right off the bat, I would like to commend the Solicitor General for hearing our plea and that of many people for the last few years to strengthen Correctional Service Canada by adding more guards, more personnel. Hiring 1,000 is a good step, and I commend you for that. I know that you know that I've been asking for that for quite some time. I think that's really a fine step in the right direction. So thank you for that.

I want to ask a whole slew of questions. A lot of them are based on a pile of paper I have that's getting about that deep. It's coming from guards from all across the country. I know that you gentlemen realize that I'm receiving these documented statements from guards left and right, and in addition to that, I'm receiving dozens and dozens of calls on a weekly basis dealing with harassment from management in all these institutions, but I do believe that this hiring of 1,000 additional people will certainly ease the tensions and pressures that cause a lot of these things to happen.

But I want to stick to the one issue of the escapes of offenders Kennedy and Wanamaker from the Bowden Institution. Now these two inmates are both child sex offenders. They recently walked away from the annex of a minimum-security facility in Alberta, the Bowden Institution. Both were recaptured, but not before the abduction and the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.

Now when people began to inquire how this could have occurred, they were astonished to learn that Kennedy was on day parole for molesting little girls. He was forbidden to have any contact with any of these previous victims, but he was permitted by CSC officials to receive visits from these past victims. We find it incredible.

• 1115

When confronted about such obvious and irresponsible conduct, CSC stated that they were not required to follow the National Parole Board's stipulations and could permit visits as they saw fit.

Even more, it turns out that the inmates from Bowden had actually complained about the behaviour of this pair with their female child visitors, and that instead of revoking parole, CSC monitored these same prohibited visits.

First, I'd like to have the minister confirm that the statements I have just made are true, and if so, does he approve of this procedure? If not, what steps is he going to take?

Secondly, I would like to know in the case of Wanamaker if indeed only days before his escape the National Parole Board turned down his request for parole with the understanding that they had to do so because of his behaviour with these young girls from these visits who were friends of Kennedy. It was obvious to them that he was a serious risk and they just couldn't give it to him.

Then how can that individual be on the outside of the wall, tilling a garden or whatever work he was doing, where he simply had to walk away? I don't think anybody even knew right away that he was gone.

People are finding it hard to understand why child sexual predators are so free to roam about, especially when the National Parole Board in one case said this fellow was a high risk and shouldn't be let out.

Lastly, I want to quote to you a memo I received from Sherry Wanamaker, ex-wife, and mother of the children he had assaulted. She says:

Hi Myron,

I'm sure you know about Erik escaping from Bowden. Thank God the RCMP were able to catch him so quickly, although not quick enough for the Campbell family or myself.

I'm writing to ask if you can put political pressure on whoever to help ensure that these two creeps get the book thrown at them.

She goes on to say:

I have to tell you the weekend was a nightmare, and the police didn't make it any easier when they wouldn't share information with us. We learned all of our information from media reports, TV and radio. We had no contact with anybody. I can't tell you how frightening it was and how frustrating it was.

I wonder if you plan to do anything in regard to these victims of that nature, and if you're going to have an inquiry in the Sylvain Leduc case. And in this case—and I'm sure you are going to have an inquiry—why not an independent inquiry? I find it very strange that you're willing to let out-of-control officials examine themselves.

That's my statement. You can answer as you see fit.

Mr. Andy Scott: First of all, I think I need to make a few cautions. We're talking about people who are currently charged and before the court. So I want to speak to this in general. I think it would be more prudent.

The fact remains that we need to attend to the question of how it is that we do an investigation of an incident that obviously demonstrates that the results of decisions were not what we would want. That's very, very important. It's important to gain the confidence of Canadians. I think we have a leadership responsibility to do that.

We have to be very careful as to the way we do it. I do not necessarily take the position that we do not have the capacity within a professional organization like the CSC or the RCMP to in fact investigate with integrity our own operations, any more than members of Parliament could assign committees to investigate their own behaviour in terms of trying to get to the bottom of facts. I think that's important.

I speak now to your first comments about the piles of notes and things from guards and people who work in the correctional system. I spent a great deal of time trying to get to the bottom of these, as you know, and ultimately there are processes in place designed to do that.

With 13,000 employees in the correctional service and 17,000 employees in the RCMP and many other people, I'm not sure that the way to deal with a specific incident inside a correctional facility is for me to try to chase that down. I think I better serve the system by making sure of the integrity of the processes in place inside the system to deal with those things.

• 1120

I do that with great frequency. I'm often engaged with the union of the employees to try to see how we might improve that process. I call the facilities and deal, very often personally, with the person, the individual correctional officer, who has the complaint. It's never specifically to deal with trying to resolve the specific problem, because I don't think that's the best thing I can do. The best thing I can do is to see how it is we have put systems in place to deal with those to the satisfaction of those concerned.

In defence of Bowden and the very specific incidents in terms of the institution itself, I think this is the fourth escape in 11 years. For people who are afraid when incidents happen, and when there's a lot of attention given, I think it's important that this is also part of the discussion.

That doesn't excuse anything. I know that. I mean, if you're the parent or the spouse, or if it's your parent, that doesn't excuse anything. But in the interests of the sense Canadians have about the safety of the system, and in the face of the fact that we're about to engage in a review of the entire system, I think it's fair to view the whole system. Because I'd hate to see us chase another kind of corrections that might seem on the surface to be a better kind of corrections when there's lots of evidence to suggest that we will not have a safer Canada if we do it.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you.

Minister, as you well know, in Quebec we have an ongoing problem with Hell's Angels and other gang and biker clubs—to say the least, they're clubs—who've played havoc with public security and have in fact led to the deaths of numerous citizens.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that you were going to have a meeting or national workshop in the near future, if I understood you well, on organized crime. What will be the purpose of the meeting, or what would you like to accomplish?

Mr. Andy Scott: Over the course of the last nine months in this job I've been quite impressed with how much is being done, in how many different ways, by how many different people and agencies and levels of government, to deal with organized crime. We've done a reasonably good job in the context of the legal framework within the last Parliament. We brought in a witness protection act. We brought in the proceeds of crime units, and the anti-smuggling initiative. We've done quite a bit in that context.

So we have a large part of the necessary legal framework. It's not exhausted, but it's quite solid. We need suspicious transaction legislation, and I'm pursuing that, but generally I think we have a big chunk of the legal framework down. We have a lot of resources and we have a lot of people engaged in dealing with this.

Now, organized crime, by definition, is organized. We need to be more organized. We need to set ourselves up in competition with the bad guys with the same level of cooperation and organization as is available to them. I will feel us successful when we are referred to as the “organized response to organized crime”. That is what we're doing.

Tomorrow I think 39 or 40 police chiefs, people representing the provincial prosecutions, basically people on the ground....

The fact is, I've spent a great deal of time on this file, meeting with Janet Reno, meeting with the organized crime unit in Vancouver, meeting with the police chiefs of Montreal and Winnipeg and Calgary. We've spent a lot of time, and there's an enormous amount of activity. So I don't think more interest on the part of law enforcement is the answer. I think we need to simply draw everybody together.

• 1125

Tomorrow we will be dealing with renewing the national police service. These are things the police have told me themselves we need to do. We have to strengthen our criminal intelligence systems. We talked about ViCLAS and other kinds of information-sharing networks that need to be available if we're going to do this in an organized fashion.

We may be a little more targeted in terms of some of the types of crimes that are related to organized activity, and we need to also take a very strong initiative with regard to economic crime. In order to make it go away—and I don't pretend this is something we're going to do with perfection—I think we very strongly need to commit to doing it together, rather than doing a lot of the finger-pointing that goes on about who didn't do what they should have done.

I think we're there. In the conversations I've had with my provincial colleagues, the RCMP, the police chiefs and so on, there is a commitment to do this. So we're bringing everybody together with the objective that when this meeting is over tomorrow, we'll begin the formulation of a very comprehensive, very understandable national strategy that will inform other federal government departments so they will have access to what we're trying to do, in very clear terms, when they make decisions.

Again, I think it's a confidence-raising exercise in the context of Canadians. When you have a situation where crime is going down and fear is going up, we also have a significant obligation to reassure. Probably the largest number of victims are people who are scared. They're simply living in fear. They are victims of crime, and I think we have an obligation to deal with that too.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I just want to try to clear up—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I have a short question.

The Chair: No. There are other people who haven't had any opportunity at all. But I'll try to come back to you.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I thought it was the kiss of death sitting beside Mrs. Finestone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's noisy sitting beside me as well today.

Mr. John McKay: I want to direct your attention to page 22 of your report, which is your relationship to CSIS. It says:

Contine the review and streamlining of Ministerial directions to CSIS to ensure consistency with Ministerial accountability, operational requirements....

As you well know, the immigration department has CSIS do its security checks. As a member of the immigration committee, we heard some testimony yesterday that is disturbing, to say the least. It concerns two particular people, both of whom are Kurds, who released to us a letter directed to Mr. Elcock with respect to the security interviews. Part of the letter says:

During our security interviews, each one of us has been asked to inform on our fellow Kurds and we've been told it would be easier for us to be landed if we did. We have nothing to hide as each of us will speak about ourselves but we will not be used against each other. We also know of Kurds who are landed and who are citizens who are still being harassed and intimidated in this manner.

This is signed by 14 people, and there were two witnesses there yesterday.

I consider this to be a pretty serious accusation. The particular individuals who were there are determined to be refugees, but they are not being landed because they apparently will not cooperate with the CSIS interviews.

My first question is with respect to ministerial accountability. Does this issue fall in your lap?

Mr. Andy Scott: In the event that those allegations are accurate, it would be a direct violation of what we do. So we will be pursuing it unless the director wants to say something in more detail. I don't want to speak to specific cases for a whole bunch of reasons. It's almost a question of the general policy. It would be a violation of what we do and I will pursue it with a vengeance.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, the standard policy that applies to all CSIS officers is that they are carefully instructed to ensure that all people they interview understand we can do nothing for them in the immigration process. It's also made clear to people that they talk to us voluntarily. If they choose not to talk to us, they don't have to talk to us at any time.

• 1130

Having said that, from time to time people make complaints, and although I am not a suspicious person, it is passing strange how some of them are all coming up at the same time.

From time to time allegations are made that our officers have done something they ought not to do. If those allegations are made, and they are usually sent to me, they are passed on to SIRC, which has the full authority to review all of our documents and question all of our people and come to a determination of what in fact transpired. As the minister says, if at the end of the day there was a conclusion that somebody had done something they ought not to have done, then we would deal with it.

Mr. John McKay: I would be interested in a joint undertaking here to pursue this matter, because this is just a little too regular. I don't feel comfortable, particularly with respect to the third party witness who was there yesterday afternoon who was not subject to the interview but confirmed the testimony of these particular witnesses. I don't think this is the way we want to carry on business in this country.

I am going to leave it there, because I take you at your word that this will be pursued vigorously. It is of considerable interest to those of us on the immigration committee, because we are reviewing the issue of removals, and the issue of security review comes up time and time again. So I would appreciate whatever you can do. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay. I am going to go back to Mr. Marceau now.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: At the risk of disappointing you and surprising those seated here at this table, I'm not planning to invite RCMP officials in our riding to come and celebrate the 125th anniversary of their organization. Having said this, I would appreciate an answer to my earlier question. What are these festivities expected to cost?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Perhaps the best way to get to this, Richard, is to have the commissioner speak directly to the way this is being managed as an administrative item inside the RCMP.

[Translation]

Mr. Philip J.R. Murray (Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): We have no special budget as such, Mr. Marceau. Of course, an RCMP employee is coordinating events across the country, but the RCMP has no special budget drawn from public funds. There will be no negative impact as a result of this year's festivities. Over 700 events are being planned across the country in many communities, including some in Quebec.

Even yesterday, when I was in Haiti, I attended an event commemorating our anniversary along with several Quebec police chiefs.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand what you're saying, that there is no special budget as such, although a person has been appointed to oversee the anniversary celebrations. And yet, just about everywhere I go in Canada, I see signs announcing the RCMP's 125th anniversary. That's only one example. The money for this has to come from one budget or another. I want to know if it's coming from your budget.

Mr. Philip Murray: No, as I said, it's not coming from our budget.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Then where is the money coming from?

Mr. Philip Murray: From another departmental budget.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Not from the RCMP's budget. The fact remains though that the federal government is paying for the RCMP celebrations. Isn't that right?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Could I perhaps frame this in a different way? I cannot speak for all communities, but the RCMP in my community has been very active in the community all the time. Consequently, there is a great deal of activity around the RCMP; they are very engaged in the events.

Because they are always very engaged in the community, what is happening this year is we are applying a 125 spin to this year, because this is the year. The reality is that this kind of activity goes on, and there is a division of the RCMP engaged in public affairs.

• 1135

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: What your telling me is that this is merely a different spin on something that happens each year. Are you saying that each year, another federal department gives money to the RCMP so that it can organize some activities? Mr. Murray said earlier that this money was not coming out of his budget and you're telling me that this happens each year. There appears to be a contradiction here, unless there is some other department that gives you money each year.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: The cost associated with the posters, I'm told by the commissioner, is a part of corporate sponsorship. We have a relationship with many private sector organizations, and again I go back to my own constituency. Very often we share events with the RCMP and other organizations in the community. It happens quite regularly, so it's not unusual.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Will you be able to tell us when you next appear which department supplied the funding that you spoke of earlier?

I have a final question for the minister. You talked about getting the private sector involved in staging these events. From an ethical standpoint, isn't it somewhat unusual for the private sector to provide money to a government organization to put on a show like this? Don't you find this a little odd?

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Well, no. The reality is that we are moving in the direction in the RCMP toward community policing in a way that is progressive, that is very consistent with our emphasis on crime prevention and interacting with Canadian people before crimes are prevented and so on.

When I became the new Solicitor General the emphasis on community policing on the part of the RCMP was one of the things I was most happy with. Coming from a contract province myself, I had a good sense of what that meant. The RCMP is a community police in great parts of the province of New Brunswick. The collaboration between the RCMP and local community organizations as a part of community events has been going on for a long, long time.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Marceau.

Mrs. Finestone, I know you're just dying to share your time with one of your colleagues.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib): At any time.... Thank you very much.

First of all, I'm very delighted to see you, Mr. Minister.

I want to pose a question with respect to the DNA, which I know you know a great deal about, having participated in our study on privacy. In particular, I would like to address the question of how the ministers are coordinating the safe home, safe streets budget, related to your observation about a thousand new correctional officers.

Within that thousand correctional officers budget or where else, because I couldn't find it in the budget portrait, are you look at handling those safe homes and safe streets with the training of the police officers, with the use of proper help in the cases of rape and sexual assault?

Through the help part of the safe home, safe streets budget, how are you ensuring that hospitals are prepared to receive women who have been subjected to rape, so that the proper testing can be done and the testimonial materials are kept properly?

Within these thousand people, at a terribly low price at this moment, how are you able to look at behavioural modification and rehabilitation with the proper kind of personnel—psychologists, sociologists, social workers, health care workers, educational—beyond the tradition of how not to be battering somebody else within the prison walls?

On the DNA, I would presume that you will be ensuring firewalls. I would presume that you are going to be ensuring that research for anything other than directly related to the crime at hand will be out of order.

Thank you. Is that a yes on both counts?

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes.

The firewalls issue is one we're both extremely familiar with. We've built into the system a number of protections against this information being used for anything other than what it's intended for.

• 1140

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Will it be in a separate structure under the RCMP, or will it be under your direction, the direction of the ministry? How is it going to work?

Mr. Andy Scott: The DNA data bank will be administered by the RCMP and in a self-contained way that is very alert to the need to keep the information for the purposes the legislation intends.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

With respect to the 1,000 and the training of police in the hospital, how are you coordinating the whole safe homes, safe streets budget between the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, health services, Correctional Services, the whole question of a round table to look at the joint projects?

One of my concerns is proper coordination for the best use of the funds that you have at your discretion and that all the other ministries have at their discretion. I like the fact that you were talking about driving the issue from the community base, but that means funding for community-based organizations. It means joint activity so that you can look at a project and not reject it because it should have come from Secretary of State for the Status of Women, or it should have come from the health department or it should have come from you, but looking from a holistic perspective as to what will be in the best interests of that society and that community to stay safe for the children, and for the women and for the men, and certainly where you're trying to integrate with your new concept of correctional approach.

Mr. Andy Scott: This is probably the most fundamental question I could get. I think the challenge for us generally is in governing—because you're talking about health, you're talking about different jurisdictions, you're talking about municipalities and NGOs—in keeping with accountability and the assumption of responsibility. And that's a very important concept for all of us. Consequently, certain ministries have to be responsible for certain activities. Certain ministers have to be responsible for certain ministries. That's very important in the context of accountability to Canada, to the government and so on.

The fact of the matter is I don't control most of the factors that cause people to be in the correctional system. The RCMP doesn't control most of the factors that cause someone to become a target of an investigation. The reality is that while we're in the middle of this we're not necessarily making the decisions that cause much of what we do to happen and so on. So the biggest challenge we have is to reconcile those two competing interests: to hold me accountable for what I do and at the same time for me to be able to work with all of my colleagues in a way that is more collegial.

I think the most important way to pursue this is to start on the ground. That's the reason we brought in the National Reference Group. The very first exercise was to bring in people from all aspects of what my portfolio is engaged in, from prosecution to corrections, to block parenting to Crime Stoppers, the agencies and so on, to say here's what we have at our disposal: we have the RCMP, the correctional system, the National Parole Board, national security. We have a big part of the safety system. How should we use it? What do we need to do?

Bring to me your knowledge of what role a provincial department of community services has in what we do, let alone all of the agencies we work with at the level of the federal government. What are the not-for-profit organizations in a community doing? Mr. Telegdi brings to my attention practically every day some of the crime prevention organizations that exist in his community. The reality is we have to bring all of those activities to bear, and I think that's the reason I go back. I know it sounds somewhat repetitive, but I believe in it strongly. That's why we have to go back to a broad public inclusion in what has not normally been a broad public issue. And that is the issue of public safety. Primarily because most of the time we talk about it, it's painful, for everyone.

• 1145

The Chair: Thanks, Mrs. Finestone.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you. I'm cognizant of the time, so I will try to be direct.

It will come as no surprise to you that I'm going to pick up on a point from my colleague, Madam Bakopanos, about the area of organized crime and the meeting you have tomorrow.

There have been indications—and you and I have discussed this to some extent—about the Hell's Angels and organized crime and the whole importation of narcotics on the coasts of this country and the infiltration of certain areas by those groups.

I have two questions. First, since we last talked about this, has there been any particular investigation of organized crime on the coasts with respect to the importation of narcotics in the last few months? Secondly, will that be a particular item on the agenda at the meeting that you have tomorrow with your colleagues?

Mr. Andy Scott: One of the items on the agenda tomorrow is in fact drugs and importation of drugs. But also, as you can appreciate when you get into economic crime, there's an obvious link. I'm going to let Commissioner Murray speak to the operational details in terms of what the RCMP is doing to deal with this.

I think that's an important distinction as well. In terms of my directing the RCMP to investigate, I'm asked to do that often by people who would like me to cause the RCMP to do this investigation or that investigation. I think we're talking about a pretty slippery slope there. When a minister of the crown is engaged in a very hands-on way with criminal investigations, I think that's fundamentally inconsistent with the national interests, and if in fact someone has some expectation that I would be engaged in actual investigations, let's push that aside.

On the general question, though, of where the priorities should be, I don't know how I could make it more clear. I'm sure the commissioner is alert to the fact that whenever I speak about what it is that we're in the business of doing, organized crime is one of two things we talk about. That's the reason we're having the meeting tomorrow. The issues you've mentioned are on the agenda. As to any specific response to the issues you raise, I would have to defer to the commissioner.

Mr. Philip Murray: Thank you, Minister and Madam Chair.

Specifically in relation to your question, Mr. Mancini, there are ongoing operations in regard to the ports. There's ongoing cooperation among the various agencies involved. They go beyond just the RCMP. The local police of jurisdiction are involved. You talk about specific ports per se and Revenue Canada Customs has a role to play there as well. We do have ongoing resources in place to make sure the importation of contraband is generally kept to a minimum.

But you can also appreciate that the amount of resources compared to the amount of shipments that come through the ports is such that it's very difficult to check even a small proportion of those shipments. There are ways and means to target specific shipments and they are used on an ongoing basis and in a co-operative fashion. Nothing in the last few months has really changed that ongoing relationship. It does continue and it is very active.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Maloney, a brief question.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Minister, in March of this year you made mention of a “national reference group”. Could you give me more particulars on this and on what you intend?

Mr. Andy Scott: With respect to the National Reference Group, actually, what happened when I became the Solicitor General was that I immediately had requests to meet with a large number of organizations and people with a specific interest in the issues that are of importance to the Solicitor General. I realized that given the time limitations that I face as a minister, I wasn't going to be able to get to people in a—oh, I almost said “in a timely fashion”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andy Scott: I realized I wasn't going to be able to get to all of the people as quickly as I wanted to, so consequently, what we established.... And it worked, it worked very well, in fact, and I think if you asked the people in the reference group they'd tell you that.

• 1150

We brought everybody in at the same time. Given the fact that in many cases they come at these issues from different perspectives, it allowed us to cut quickly to the chase. I didn't have to find out whether everybody agreed with everybody else who said they did and so on and so forth, because everybody was in the room at the same time. We had about 40 different perspectives all at once for a whole day.

It worked so well that we've replicated it a number of times. The first one was in July or August, I think, just following my appointment, and it began a process that has worked well.

I've sent out, I believe, information packages to all members of Parliament, so if you have people you would recommend to us to participate in this exercise....

What we've done now is we've expanded it to be more than just the meeting itself. We now have what is, in contemporary language, a virtual reference group. We're sending out information on a regular basis, seeking responses to all of the things we do.

Since the first one, we had a regional one in Fredericton that had people from all over Atlantic Canada; we had one in Winnipeg to deal with those issues that are important to me, specific to the aboriginal community; we had one in Vancouver around issues that are important to the Solicitor General, specific to women; we have one scheduled, I believe, for 19 June in Montreal about issues of importance to the Solicitor General as they relate to children; and we had one specifically to begin the process of the CCRA review.

It's all in keeping with my preoccupation with engaging Canadians in their government. It's important. We all know that's important. I think we're all struggling with what are the instruments, how you do it, and I'm struggling like everybody else. But the fact is it's very important to us to engage Canadians, because that's the basis of confidence.

The reality, and one of the most troubling things for me, is that Canadians are afraid that crime is increasing, when in fact it is going down. One of the large victims of this whole file in Canada are people who are afraid. We need to turn that around. We only do that by engaging the people on the ground.

We also need to do this for reasons Ms. Finestone alluded to. This is so much bigger than us. The common denominator is the person who's on the street in Fredericton, trying to fix a problem with somebody who has maybe psychiatric problems, certainly dysfunctional family problems, perhaps economic problems, lack of employment, and so on. All of those factors come to bear. We really don't have a lot of control over most of them, but we need to be aware of them. We need to make sure we're not operating in a way that is inconsistent with their best interests, with all of our own best interests.

Mr. John Maloney: Are these things ongoing? Is there some structure to this?

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes. In fact now we have a bulletin that we send out. We are engaging people in the issues that come up.

We have DNA. We have the CCRA review. There's a long list of the kinds of issues that are important to the department, and we use that as an instrument to engage that particular group of people in this exercise.

I again invite members of the committee, if they have people they'd like to see added to that list in a practical way, I'd be very willing to include them as well.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Maloney.

Peter MacKay and then Derek Lee.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, I think some of the cynicism and perhaps the lack of confidence in the system rises from the systemic delay. You spoke of the goal of your department being to change behaviour. Sometimes the behaviour of those administering the system has to change as well.

A catchphrase that seems to be evolving in your department and others is that things will happen “in a timely fashion” or “in due course”. What I'm hearing today....

I have, for point of reference, a couple of press releases from your department, one from September 28, 1996, which predates your assuming the role of Solicitor General, and one from November 27, 1997, which was a statement by you with respect to the introduction of legislation to create a bill to address organized crime.

What concerns me is the time that's ticking, the time that's going by. Like rust, crime doesn't seem to sleep. It's always out there and it's a huge problem in this country.

• 1155

There are a lot of problems in terms of resources, which you've already indicated, and there's certainly going to be a need for resources to implement this DNA data bank, further funding perhaps for the RCMP that would lead to more personnel, like we've seen in the corrections system, resources for early intervention.

Can you confirm that there aren't going to be further cuts in those departments, that the funding is going to be there? I assume you've had discussions with the Minister of Finance over those. Can you confirm that money isn't going to be taken from front-line policing to implement DNA data-banking or early intervention programs that you speak of, that the money that perhaps was wasted on things like the Airbus investigation...?

I understand that investigation is still ongoing, and perhaps more officers have been assigned to that file. I hope to ask the commissioner about that tomorrow in his appearance.

Can you tell us, please, what your timeframe is for some of these pieces of legislation and what your priorities are? That would greatly help us as a committee.

Mr. Andy Scott: The timeframe needs to be considered against all the other things we've talked about over the last two hours.

I don't think anybody here is dismissive of how important it is that what we do is done in collaboration with what the provinces are doing and with other federal government departments. Consequently, every time we take an action it's incumbent upon us to make sure that all of the possible consequences of that action are considered.

In a country as diverse and big and legally organized in the fashion that we are, that takes time. We want to recognize the autonomy of the provinces, where they have autonomy over certain parts of this, and not work in a way that is replacing that autonomy but in a way that is complementary.

Unfortunately for those whose desire is to get on with this as quickly as possible—and it's my desire as well—we have that whole series of consultations that are appropriate and quite necessary to make sure that we do the right thing and not always the quick thing.

The second part of that, however, is the fact that we've all been engaged in very lengthy public debates around issues, in my own experience in Parliament, limited as it has been, and ultimately, at the end of the day, it's a very difficult exercise to engage Canadians in a way that causes them to feel engaged.

We can have a three-year debate in Parliament and have public hearings all over Canada—I did the social security review—we can do all kinds of broad consultations, and at the end of the day still the criticism is that we really didn't have a chance to have our say. I'm sure as practising politicians we're all aware of that.

The reason I mention this is because it's particularly important to us, because we have such a challenge to recapture the confidence of Canadians, that they need to know what we're doing. They need to know there's a place for them in this discussion. I intend to give that to them, and it will take time.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Does that mean in a timely fashion?

Mr. Andy Scott: No, that means as quickly as it can be done, and I think to be respectful of this committee.... Here's an example: accelerated review. You asked the question.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Andy Scott: I'm here today asking you whether I can proceed on accelerated review, notwithstanding the fact that I really believe in the review process we're going to engage together. That is, I think, finding the quick way to do something that needs to be done quickly, and at the same time not undermining the credibility of the system of consultation that I believe is going to be vital to this exercise.

That is an example. I appreciate your support.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Minister, I'd like to focus on the corrections envelope.

When individuals are sentenced, they've been in custody. It usually starts with an arrest, and after conviction they're assigned to the custody of CSC. What happens when they escape, as I understand it, or when they don't come back from a walk or whatever, is CSC will issue a piece of paper. It's some kind of a warrant or whatever.

• 1200

Canadians might be surprised to know that Corrections Canada does not go out and reapprehend. In fact, it's sort of left to the general community to keep an eye out. I feel Canadians would like to think that if there's an escape, reapprehension would happen quickly, that CSC would do more than simply send out a piece of paper. I gather that CSC does rely on local police forces and the RCMP and provincial police forces to find these people, where they can.

The local police forces, at least in the large and medium-sized cities where escapees generally tend to go to hide out and to do whatever they're going to do, are partners. Those police forces have to be seen as partners. I have the sense that more could be done to work with these partner police forces. I am thinking of the Toronto force, but it would apply to any force across the country. Are you doing anything in that envelope? Have you had a chance to look at that recently?

Mr. Andy Scott: It is a challenge to us. First of all, the idea that the Correctional Service of Canada would be engaged in sort of the community investigation would be duplicitous in the context of the law enforcement agencies that exist.

I think we have an obligation, CSC has an obligation, to cooperate, to give all of the information that would be helpful in the context of apprehension, and they do. Generally, these kinds of circumstances see an arrest and a reapprehension, much of it having to do with the information that's put forward.

Specific to your reference to Toronto, I think it was before I became the Solicitor General or maybe shortly thereafter.... It was really on the initiative of the chair of the National Parole Board. In fact, discussions were undertaken specifically with the Toronto police department. There was quite a bit of attention around this, having to do with the fact that they set up a special unit to deal very specifically with people who had been on parole and had violated that parole and were missing. I think we could do more of that.

I've recently met with members of the Toronto police force who are engaged in that very specific activity around a couple of things, the possibility of being of more assistance to them to engage in this activity but also to use that as a bit of model and in fact maybe even to use it as a centre of the activity for the whole country. Ultimately, one of the common features of those people who are trying to stay ahead of the law is that they move around a lot. Consequently, the challenge isn't only to put a system in place in any particular place, but to put our own kinds of firewalls around the system such that we can contain people, we can pass information back and forth and so on.

So yes, very specifically I'm engaged with an organization inside the metropolitan Toronto police at a very personal level even as we speak.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, you get the last word.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

I'll start with a comment on the RCMP. Coming from Surrey, B.C., the largest detachment in the country, I have nothing but the greatest respect for what Terry Smith is trying to do out there and the strains he's under.

My question is about Sumas, the correctional centre. You mentioned it before. We're all aware of some of the problems that have been going on there in the last few months with some fairly high-profile walkaways and crimes resulting from that.

It's my information from some people out there that the problem isn't really with the concept of Sumas and what they're trying to do. The problem is with the type of inmate who has been going there since the advent of statutory release. I would like to have your view. Have you been hearing that, that there's a problem with the type of inmate who is being sent to Sumas, not the concept itself?

Mr. Andy Scott: It's an interesting feature, and I look forward to having this debate in a broader way.

One of the changes that was made to statutory release was to require residency as a condition of statutory release. It was made, I think, in an effort to bring more control. That was a change to the provisions and it was designed specifically to bring more control. So there are people in that facility who, before that action was taken—this is an action designed to bring more control—these people would have been under statutory release without a residency requirement. They would go back to wherever they may have come from.

• 1205

In the interest of exerting more control over the system, in the last Parliament—it was before my time—we introduced a condition that upon statutory release people would have to specifically spend time in a CSC residence. Consequently, people who otherwise would not have gone to Sumas are now in Sumas.

Remember, these are people who otherwise, before that amendment, would have been somewhere else in the community without that kind of control. This was done specifically to bring more control. I think it's an example of what we have to be very cautious about when we make decisions about the system. The consequence of that, of course, is that we now have a large number of people all in the same place, all in the same facility, all in the name of more security. It was the reason the decision was taken.

The other thing I want to bring to the attention of the committee, who'd be less aware of the situation in Sumas, has been that we have engaged in a review that is more open than anything I'm aware of in the past. It was at the request of members of Parliament who felt very strongly about this. I recognized how strongly they felt.

We placed a member of the community on the review panel. I think others have questioned this today, would we be prepared to do something external. As a result of that, we actually asked somebody from the community to sit on the panel that did the review. I got very good advice from the community itself, in fact from the law enforcement community, as to who the person should be, and they were put on the committee. We ran ads in the newspaper. We had people come to make their case. There is a limit, when you are consulting the population and when you are provoking the population, at some point.

We've done our best, I think, to bring all of the arguments to bear. A report will be prepared. We're very concerned about the incidents that have taken place in that facility. I do think it also points to another issue, which is that we have to be very cautious about what the outcomes might be of the things we do with all the best of intentions.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Maybe we should be a little more cognizant about statutory release. That brings me right back to the Richardson issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cadman. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.