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]

Wednesday, April 28, 1999

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. We have with us the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, our Solicitor General.

Mr. MacAulay, perhaps you could introduce the witnesses you brought with you today.

• 1535

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have it in my notes, in fact.

I'm pleased to be here. I wonder if we could move first that we hold the hearings outside. When I was coming in from Sparks Street, I was thinking it would be much better.

I'm pleased to be here to discuss the spending priorities and plans for the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Joining me is the Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Jean Fournier; RCMP Commissioner Philip Murray; Mr. Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada; Mr. Willie Gibbs, Chairman of the National Parole Board; and Mr. Ward Elcock, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Do you want me to proceed?

The Chair: Yes, the floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would like to take a few minutes to give you an update on our progress in improving public safety for Canadians, especially with respect to my four major strategic priorities: combating organized crime, integrating justice information systems, promoting effective corrections, and encouraging citizen engagement.

Public safety is at the heart of the government's mandate and it is the mission of my ministry. Combating organized crime is the key part of our public safety agenda. Last December I reaffirmed the commitment in the House of Commons in my annual statement on organized crime.

Organized crime is a serious national and international problem that threatens public safety. It is now a multi-billion-dollar enterprise in Canada. Many of the problems Canadians see every day are linked to organized crime. Whether it is a drug-related burglary, a carton of smuggled cigarettes, a telemarketing scam, or juvenile prostitution, it's usually part of the larger problem—organized crime. That's why fighting organized crime is a major task for the government and a key priority of the RCMP.

We've done a lot so far to hit hard at these criminals. For example, during our first mandate the government created 10 integrated proceeds-of-crime units to seize criminal assets. We launched an anti-smuggling initiative that has led to 17,000 charges, resulting in over $113 million in fines and $218 million in goods seized. We passed legislation making it illegal to participate in a criminal organization, punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

We're proud of what we've accomplished, but we know there's a lot more work to do. To achieve our objectives, Mr. Chairman, we need to demonstrate strong national leadership and provide more tools for the police.

In October last year, a joint statement on organized crime, the first of its kind, outlined the principles that will guide Canada's efforts. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers all endorsed that statement. They recognized the federal government's national leadership role, working in partnership with other levels of government and the law enforcement community; that we need to give police more tools to fight organized crime; and that taking the profit out of organized crime is an effective way to put these criminals out of business.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to report that the government will soon take a major step forward in our fight against organized crime. We will soon introduce legislation that hits organized criminals where it hurts the most—in their wallets.

The new law will create a system that makes it mandatory to report suspicious financial transactions and any cross-border movement of large amounts of money. It will give police a crucial investigative tool against organized criminals while protecting the personal financial information of Canadians.

Because organized crime doesn't respect borders, we've been working closely with all of our international partners. This year, in my home province of Prince Edward Island, Canada will host the third meeting of the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum.

Canada is also working closely internationally with the United Nations, the G-8, and the Organization of American States. At the 1998 Birmingham summit of G-8 countries, Prime Minister Chrétien and other heads of state identified drugs and organized crime as the greatest threat to our countries. They called for more international cooperation in the fight against organized crime. This is fully consistent with Canada's approach.

• 1540

As an example of the joint effort to combat organized crime, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service also contributes to the wider effort. Through the lawful use of wiretaps and sophisticated technology, CSIS and other national security agencies are keeping track of organized criminals and terrorist groups. This intelligence is shared with police and other decision-makers.

Let me turn now to our second strategic priority: integrating justice information. A lot can be done when police have a system that is reliable, current, complete, and that supports information sharing.

Last week in Halifax I announced the renewal of the Canadian Police Information Centre, better known as CPIC. The RCMP will receive $115 million to completely modernize and expand the existing outdated system—the system that serves over 60,000 law enforcement officials in every province and territory and that handles over 100 million inquiries from 15,000 points of access.

With the new system, information will be shared more widely and much faster with police, prosecutors, courts, and parole and correctional agencies. It will be very useful in helping to solve cross-jurisdictional crime and in sharing information on organized crime.

CPIC is an excellent example of federal-provincial partnership. It brings together information from across the country to create a “trans-Canada highway” of criminal justice information. The ministry's long-term objective is to build a Canadian public safety information network in partnership with the provinces and territories. Consultations have already begun to join all of the federal and provincial partners in Canada's criminal justice system. Doing this delivers on the government's pledge in the 1997 Speech from the Throne to integrate information systems of all partners in the criminal justice system.

I've outlined for you how we intend to continue our fight against organized crime and how we propose to give police the tools they need to fight organized crime. But we're equally determined to take a balanced approach to dealing with offenders, including the factors that lead to criminal behaviour. Effective corrections means knowing which offenders need to be separated from society and which can be safely managed in the community. This means providing the programs and support needed to help offenders get their lives back on track.

We are proud of the work done to date in the corrections field to increase public safety.

In 1994 we established a national screening system that uses CPIC. It allows access to criminal history records for the purpose of screening out child sexual abusers applying for work with children.

In 1997 a new long-term offender category was added to the Criminal Code that targets sex offenders.

Right now, amendments to the Criminal Records Act are before Parliament to build on the national screening system by flagging the records of pardoned sex offenders so that they too can be used for screening purposes.

Just last month this government made important amendments to the CCRA that ensure that offenders convicted of participating in a criminal organization will be excluded from the accelerated parole review process. This provision will take effect on May 1 of this year.

Canada also continues to be recognized as a world leader in research on sex offenders and for its innovation in sex offender treatment. With approved programming, decision-making and supervision in the community, reoffending is down among those on conditional release.

Mr. Chairman, we do have success stories, but let's not forget that Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates among the developed countries, at 129 per 100,000. And behind this figure hides an even more serious problem: the situation of aboriginal offenders. The aboriginal incarceration rate is 735 per 100,000, more than six times the national average. I am determined to tackle these challenges.

• 1545

For the past several years we have been active in several initiatives that directly involve first nations communities. We have worked with communities at the forefront of healing victims and victimizers. For example, at the Pê Sâkâstêw centre, a healing lodge for male offenders at Hobbema, Alberta, only one offender out of sixty released to date has reoffended.

The results are promising, but much more needs to be done.

A key element of our strategy will be creating new healing lodges—treatment facilities designed with and for aboriginal people and operated by aboriginal communities.

I am also very interested in the serious problem of substance abuse among offenders. About seven out of every ten offenders have serious problems with alcohol and drugs. The criminal behaviour of over half of all federal offenders is associated in some way with substance abuse. Either the crime was committed under the influence or it was an attempt to secure money to buy drugs or alcohol.

In the coming year, the ministry plans to expand the community-based programs that provide treatment, training and supervision for offenders on conditional release. Drug, alcohol, anger management, and other types of community programs will be expanded because they have been proven to help offenders overcome their criminal behaviour and become law-abiding citizens. Given the high correlation between substance abuse and crime, I believe this is a critical area for action.

Lastly, I want to talk about my ministry's fourth strategic priority: encouraging citizen engagement.

I understand that this is an issue that the CCRA subcommittee has discussed—the need to raise public awareness and encourage more dialogue with Canadians. Knowing this, I am particularly proud of a recent ministry initiative to raise public awareness about Canada's criminal justice system.

Recently I sent the subcommittee members a copy of A Test of Justice, a documentary that follows an offender through his arrest, imprisonment, and conditional release into the community. It was first broadcast by CTV in December 1998, and since then over 60 copies have been distributed as a public education tool.

We have made great strides in engaging citizens and organizations, especially the national voluntary sector, in helping to shape the future of Canada's criminal justice system.

To sum up, my ministry is committed to ensuring that Canada remains one of the best—indeed, one of the safest—places in the world to live.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to hear from my colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I might advise the committee and Minister MacAulay that there will be a vote. The bells are ringing now, although they're not ringing in this room, for some reason. In roughly 19 minutes we'll cut off at 15 minutes to return to the House for the vote. We have two options then, either to adjourn and reconvene on another day, or to proceed following the vote, which would be approximately half an hour.

What is your wish, committee?

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): If I could make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest another day. I'm also looking forward to the opportunity of being able to have the witnesses who are with the minister—Mr. Ingstrup, Commissioner Murray, and the rest of the gentlemen—on their own so that we can deal with their specific portfolios. I think it's great that they're here today, but with the limited time we have and the questions we have for the minister, I wouldn't want this to be the only opportunity we have to take a look at the other departments.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Is there any possibility that you can deal with me today? I think that was the practice of the committee previously. Would that be acceptable?

The Chair: I think we will probably deal with you, and if we finish with you, then perhaps we can move on to others.

The problem is, Jim, that we're moving to a date that we have to have our estimates finished by, and that's the end of May. I think we should try to deal with as much as we can today and take it from there. We may have to call extra meetings in order to fit it in.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sure we're prepared to cooperate, absolutely.

• 1550

The Chair: Before we proceed, I'd like to acknowledge the presence of some students from the Forum for Young Canadians. Is that the group? Welcome.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chair: We're very happy you could pop in and see us for a few minutes, because we're going to have to run back to the House for a vote.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: With your indulgence, if I could just not bite into my questioning time for the minister, I'd like to explain, particularly for the benefit of the students, that this is a great part of democracy: that parliamentarians from both sides of the House have an opportunity to be able to put the minister into a position of inquisition. And for the benefit of the students, I and Mr. Reynolds and the rest of the people on this side bear no personal animosity to the minister, but politically we'd like to rip his face off.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I believe that analyses the situation pretty accurately.

The Chair: I've been told that the time is such we should be getting to the House. So rather than interrupt your questioning, and even let you go to the first one, I think we would be better to adjourn now and come back after the vote.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): It could be a half hour, Mr. Chairman, before we can vote in the House if the bells are ringing, and then it will be another half hour probably to have the vote. So in an hour it's going to be five o'clock when we come back here.

The Chair: No. It's already roughly 15 minutes of bells we've gone through.

Mr. Lawrence McCauley: It was a while ago, by the time I started my speech.

The Chair: Okay. We're adjourned.

• 1555

• 1635

[Technical Difficulties—Editor]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let me ask you a very brief question, to which I'll hopefully get a brief answer. Is it correct that CPIC is under the control and responsibility and budget of the Solicitor General?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Then why is it that in the October detailed statements from the justice department on contracts they have contracts from the justice department, not from the Solicitor General, toward supporting CPIC? I wonder if you could explain that to us.

I'll give you time to ponder this, because this is an important issue. If the official opposition, or any of the opposition parties, or the public at large, are going to have an opportunity to hold the Government of Canada accountable, they have to know where the dollars are. And if that is your department, what is this expenditure doing from the justice department?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I fully agree that you have every right to know exactly about every expenditure, and on this specific detail the commissioner is here, so I believe he would be the logical person to respond.

Commissioner.

Commissioner Philip Murray (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you very much, Minister, and Mr. Chairman.

I think what you're referring to there are the changes that were required in CPIC in order to accommodate the gun registry, in order that a police officer checking the system could have a cross-reference to the gun registry. So it was part of the dollars that were provided to the Department of Justice for the gun registry initiative. That's why there is a relationship back over to CPIC, because some changes were required in the system to be able to accommodate that interoperability between the gun registry and the CPIC system so that ordinary police officers could have direct access to it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I see. Then it's not a case that the justice department is funding a specific part of CPIC. Is that what you're saying?

Commr Philip Murray: That's correct, sir.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let me pass a compliment to the commissioner, right from the commissioner down to the constable on the beat for the RCMP. I think if it weren't for the professionalism of the RCMP, for their dedication to getting the job done, the strangulation of their resources by this government would have resulted in some very serious deficiencies. So I would like to compliment the commissioner and right through the force, right to the constable.

However, when I read through some of the documents I shouldn't have possession of under normal circumstances, I see some rather Orwellian things going on over there. For example, there's a document I have from Division A that talks about specific cutbacks that are happening in drug interdiction, in VIP... In all of these things there's a wholesale cutback, and the commissioner for Division A makes a rather Orwellian statement after he details all of these cutbacks, saying “and of course this will improve our efficiency”.

I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you can tell us how this strangulation of the RCMP and those necessary cutbacks that have occurred improves the efficiency or gets us past the point of your words, saying that you're serious about organized crime and you're serious about making the streets safe.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm well aware that we are very serious about fighting organized crime, but nobody has indicated there wasn't a financial difficulty when we took power in 1993, and all departments and agencies had to field some of the brunt. But the RCMP has a budget of over $1.2 billion, and it's up to the RCMP to administer their own budget, and if it would shift from one area to the other it would be an administrative decision that would be made within the force.

Mr. Jim Abbott: But aren't they, Mr. Minister, being forced to cut back about $21 million? They are now past the fat, past the lean, and they're sawing into the bone for this $21 million, with cars without tires, with broken-down infrastructure, and they're being told you must come up with this $21 million because we've just granted you a raise.

• 1640

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I don't have the specifics of every division across the country, so I'll let the commissioner respond. But there is no endless supply of money for any agency or department in government, and the commissioner has to operate within the budget.

Mr. Jim Abbott: It was reported in the Ottawa Sun this last weekend that we had RCMP people interdicting a ship they had been tracing for two years with absolutely no pay—they did it for free. Is that a correct version of it?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I don't think it's incorrect at all that this type of thing takes place. The RCMP over its history has had a very dedicated force. The compliment you paid the force is appreciated.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Abbott made reference to documents he shouldn't have possession of. If he's going to examine the minister on documents, he should table the document so that all of the committee, including the witnesses, have access to those documents so we can review those documents and understand them.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, that's fine, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): On that same point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm concerned when Mr. Abbott says he shouldn't have them. I don't know where we're going with this, if your comment was that there are documents you shouldn't have.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would not normally expect to, in the normal course of events, be in possession of a document from the commanding officer of Division A. It came across my desk. I have it, and I'm happy to table it.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: There is nothing untoward in the way you attained it?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: He's going to table it, guys. Let's table it and move on.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm happy to table that, plus another document from Surrey that came into my possession.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott has said that he would like to table them. Could we have copies made?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What I'm driving at, Mr. Minister, is we have had successive Solicitors General from your government, yourself included, who have been making comments about getting serious about organized crime. Where is the money-laundering legislation that was supposed to have been in the House tomorrow? That legislation has been outstanding for the longest time. We're talking about resources so these people can get on and do their job. Yes, I am complimenting the commissioner and I am complimenting the RCMP, but with the greatest respect I suggest that your government is strangling them.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think the announcement I made last Friday would indicate one of the priorities of my department that was fully fulfilled: that we allotted the money, $115 million, for the upgraded CPIC. It was a major financial commitment, which was appreciated by the RCMP and other police forces across the country who were present when we made this announcement.

There have been a number of other legislative changes, including the DNA legislation, and the proceeds of crime units that were put in place. There have been a number of things done by this government over the last five years that have helped fight organized crime, including money-laundering legislation. I don't handle the day-to-day activities at the House of Commons, but I did indicate that this legislation is coming shortly, and I suspect it will come shortly. But it's not that there haven't been a number of things happening.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Could you help me understand if there's anything untoward about this? My understanding is that there are 38 allocated positions in Division A, positions that are funded and paid positions but are currently vacant, and that those funds in fact are not being used for those positions and don't have to be used for the positions because the positions are vacant. Is there anything unusual or untoward about that? Because it strikes me that if we are to understand how this is supposed to be working, and we understand there are to be x number of people in Division A, Division E, or whatever the division is, and they are not, the money is still flowing but then it ends up being reallocated. That doesn't strike me as really good management or control from the Solicitor General's perspective. I understand it from the RCMP's perspective, I think, because they're using what they have, as meagre as it may be.

• 1645

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Again, it's an operational matter, and I've probably answered a number of questions that are quite operational. I'll let the commissioner respond to you.

Commr Philip Murray: Thank you, Minister.

I'd be happy to address the context of your question.

As we speak, there is an overall resource review being undertaken by the Treasury Board. We believe there is systemic underfunding of the RCMP across our various business lines, in the sense that over the course of the last several years, as we have been targeting upwards toward meeting our federal mandate in relation to organized crime, the costs of doing business have increased substantially. So in order to be able to afford to undertake operations at a very high level, it's necessary to use salary dollars in order to put those dollars into the operations budget, if you will. It's in that sense that the Treasury Board is addressing it from a systemic perspective.

It has been put to the competitive process. Pricewaterhouse Coopers is the company that won the contract, and they're in the process of doing that full review of our resources. The expectation is that they will be completing that this fall and submitting the report sometime in September or October. We're very much looking forward to the results of that.

In the meantime, obviously we have to continue with what we have. We have to make our numbers in terms of the dollars we have available and at the same time make sure we're addressing our top priority, which of course is organized crime. The only way we can do that in the short term is to make sure our people base, if you will, is lowered slightly in order to have enough dollars to be able to meet our operational needs.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Isn't there a shortfall of 500 people in British Columbia?

The Chair: I think we'll have to cut off there.

Mr. Marceau, please. You have seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming today. Mr. Minister, this is the first time that you have appeared before us.

In the presentation that you made at the beginning of the meeting you said that your priority was the fight against organized crime. Obviously, as my colleague from the Reform Party mentioned, to effectively fight against organized crime, you must be willing to pay for it.

However, we learned recently that the RCMP was about to close some of its offices in a number of areas in Quebec, including Drummondville, Granby, and Saint-Hyacinthe, and I have been told—and correct me if I'm wrong—that Baie-Comeau and Roberval are also on the hit list. How can you say that you want to fight against organized crime while closing the RCMP offices in strategic locations? There is a lot of traffic through Drummondville, Granby, and Saint-Hyacinthe, and these cities are relatively close to the border, as you no doubt already know.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: There is certainly nothing to indicate that anything is going to close anywhere.

What the commissioner has indicated is quite true. There is a resource review program taking place. There are a lot of questions being asked, and a lot of answers being received by the RCMP and by the review committee. What the RCMP, the government, Treasury Board, and I expect all Canadians want is dollars to be spent effectively and wisely across the country. But it would be inappropriate to indicate that anything would close anywhere.

We are evaluating the whole process, but as clearly as I can say, I think it would be very inappropriate to say what will or will not happen. What we want to do is have this resource review completed, and then, with the RCMP, it will be evaluated.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: When will this evaluation be finished?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It will be in the fall. I don't have the specific date.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay. We have just received the Main Estimates. I'm looking for the breakdown, by division or by province, which would be preferable, for expenditures and resources for the RCMP, including the information on staffing. Would it be possible to have that? I'm sure it's possible.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: We could send that to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Fine. I will wait. Thank you.

• 1650

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Would you want it by each province—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, that's it.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: —or by division, like A Division, or whatever?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, Quebec is a division. Is that right? Therefore, give me one or the other. Do whatever is easiest for you.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Here is another question. You talked about the money laundering problem. As my colleague Abbot said, a bill will be tabled in the House tomorrow, I believe. Mr. Minister, you know that I was involved in studying the money laundering issue. And you must know that one of the problems with money laundering, as was stated by the State Department in the United States, is that we have, in Canada, the 1,000-dollar bill. In Europe, they are discussing the problem with high denomination bank notes. There will probably be a 500-Euro note. Once again, the State Department, British Customs, and British police services have mentioned that high denomination bank notes were an instrument that helped the money launderers.

You must also know that here in Canada, many organizations have come out in favour of abolishing the 1,000-dollar bill, including the governments of Quebec and the North West Territories, the Quebec Federation of Police Officers, the Canadian Police Association, and the Montreal Urban Community police force. Have you studied this issue and have you taken a position on the withdrawal of the 1,000-dollar bill and if so, what is this position?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You and I have discussed this a number of times, and I know you've discussed it with my parliamentary secretary. It is, of course, an issue we have been evaluating for a period of time, and I have had representations from different agencies and groups across this country. The decision would be made not by me but by the Department of Finance, which makes the final decision on whether it would or would not be continued, or if they would be phased out, or whatever. But I can assure you that it is an issue that is being evaluated and looked at closely by the Government of Canada and by law enforcement agencies across the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: If I understand correctly, the Minister of Finance will be the one to decide, but if the police forces throughout the country are consulted, this would certainly be through your department. I know that you have already done some considerable consultation. What is your own position, and what will you recommend to the Minister of Finance?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm not trying to mislead you or anything else, but with my conversations with another cabinet minister on this specific issue, I would tell you it's an issue we have discussed and evaluated, and I have given my recommendations.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Notwithstanding what my colleague across the table might think, I believe it would be interesting to know the position of the person who's responsible for Canada's police forces, if not the position held by the RCMP Commissioner, who has no doubt taken a stand after having met people from right across the country.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would support anything that will help fight organized crime in this country and worldwide.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have a final question. Will we have a second round?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Minister, quite recently, we spent an entire night debating in the House. There were 301 of us. It wasn't just you and me.

• 1655

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Richard Marceau: You must be aware of the anger and animosity created by your government's passing of the back-to-work legislation for the employees of Correctional Services Canada, among others.

Can you assure us that the inmates will not be subjected to any type of reprisal, or, at the very least, will not bear the brunt of the prison guards' anger towards the employer, since that time?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, it would certainly be fully my understanding that this is the way it would be.

We have the commissioner of the Correctional Service, and I'd ask him to respond to that.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau, it's with great pleasure that I can say that the return to work by our prison guards was without incident. I don't remember any other situation where there was a better transition after a strike.

I must tell you that both managers and employees, including the ones who went out on strike, as well as the inmates, had fully understood that it was necessary to work together and to quickly begin to work well together. There was no incident during the back- to-work process, except for a few minor things.

Mr. Richard Marceau: There were some problems last Thursday.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: This isn't something that I was told personally, but I will look into it to see if something happened. If so, I'm sure it was only minor.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would be happy if you did that.

Comm. Ole Ingstrup: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: If you have something you'd like us to look into, just give me the information and I'll make sure you receive it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was listening to the comments earlier by Mr. Abbott on CPIC and I had some specific questions on CPIC.

The government announced last week that the 30-year-old Canadian Police Information Centre would be receiving a $115 million overhaul. I don't think there's any confusion about that influx of money. There seems to be some confusion around how and where it's going to be spent. Reports from the RCMP official state that they need at least $283 million to properly update the computer to deal with processing of convicted criminals, stolen property, and for the addition of a DNA data bank, the firearms data bank, and missing persons. There also is a demand for more public information to be made available for sex offender registration, which I assume would be in the same computer base.

Your department is planning to commit to providing the extra money necessary for proper utilization of this computer. How can your department do that if there is a timetable... Is there a timetable for when we can expect to hear that there will be an announcement for further funding that's obviously going to be required to put all the information into the computer that's needed in it?

My second question, on the same issue, is will this current CPIC be updated, or will it be replaced by the proposed Canadian Public Safety Information Services?

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

The truth is the $115 million is to upgrade CPIC and put it in proper shape for the RCMP and police forces across the country. What you're talking about are some ongoing costs.

The commissioner understands this fully, and he will explain. The money is within the budget, from what I understand, on the ongoing costs. That's where this $200 million figure comes in. There are also—and the commissioner will explain this—other parts of CPIC in the provincial jurisdiction and provincial police forces.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

• 1700

Commr Philip Murray: Thank you, Minister.

Perhaps I could just clarify. I think the numbers you're referring to deal with the larger public safety network. The CPIC is the police part of that, and that is being fully funded to be fully upgraded. The integration with the court system, with the correction system, with the parole system, those kinds of things are really being dealt with in another forum. At this particular point in time, the only item that is funded is the CPIC system itself. The rest of the elements of the system you referred to earlier are still in the queue in terms of funding, but CPIC is being fully funded.

The annual operating cost of running the existing system will be used to operate the new system, so there's no additional funding needed for that. So CPIC is fully funded to be fully implemented over the course of the next two or three years, and the other elements of the system you're talking about will come at another time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just for clarification, and I think it's required, if CPIC is fully funded, then the rest of the database that will be required—and I want to make sure I repeat these—to deal with the processing of convicted criminals, to own property, firearms, missing persons, possible addition of a DNA data bank at some stage, and sex offender registration will all come at some later date.

Commr Philip Murray: No, that's not correct to say, Mr. Keddy. All of those issues are included in the CPIC package.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That will be there.

Commr Philip Murray: The other number you were talking about was the larger public safety initiative.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, I appreciate that answer. Thank you. I needed some clarification there.

The second question I'd like to ask is on organized crime. In June the minister will be meeting with U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to address American concerns that terrorists and gang members are flooding into the United States through Canada. I think we've all heard enough of that on the news lately.

There will be new money to combat cross-border drug-trafficking, organized crime, terrorism, telemarketing fraud, and firearms traffic in the upcoming year. Can we expect some new money to come from the budget? I understand the minister's difficulty here, because we're dealing with Treasury Board on some issues and we're dealing with the finance department on some issues and we have some budget in his own department. Can we expect some additional moneys?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, if I recall correctly, even the CPIC funding wasn't specifically named in the budget. There's money-laundering legislation due to come through very shortly. There are things happening through the year that will be done in order to fight organized crime. Just because it's not specifically named in the budget doesn't mean it will not come. I think when you look at the CPIC, that's a good example. It was a major expenditure.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, I appreciate that, but there's an old expression that we deal with dollars that are in front of us and not dollars we may be able to obtain at some later date.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, I'd like to say that I would be awfully pleased as Solicitor General if I could operate that way. In all honesty, I would just love it. But I'll tell you, you have to make a few trips.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's a good answer. I appreciate that.

I'll continue a little more on the organized crime. In the fight against organized crime, there are preliminary plans to reduce the protective operations branch by cutting at least ten positions from the VIP security section, eight in the counter-surveillance section, and five from the emergency response team tactical squad, responsible for defusing incidents such as hostage-taking.

In criminal operations, the force is looking at chopping ten positions from the drug section, five in the federal enforcement section, responsible for everything from immigration cases to waterway patrols, two from a special surveillance unit.

The RCMP needs meaningful funding to effectively combat all of these situations, which I'm sure the minister is well aware of. So what new funding will there be to keep these needed services? We're looking at more and more demands for public safety, but we're looking at fewer and fewer dollars.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Gerald, I don't think you're looking at fewer and fewer dollars. There has been an increase, though in many eyes not large enough. There are always ongoing changes, and there are ongoing changes in how the operations of the RCMP proceed over the years.

• 1705

You've indicated a list of specific issues, and I think the commissioner would be the person to respond.

Commr Philip Murray: Thank you, Minister. I think that's the same issue Mr. Abbott was referring to a little earlier in his question.

The real issue is the balance, as I said earlier, between the people you have available and the overall budget. In order to target upwards, in relation to organized crime, the cost of each operation is significantly higher than it was a few years ago. Consequently, we have to adjust the balance between people and the dollars that are available to reallocate in the short term, until the resource review that's under way now by Pricewaterhouse Coopers is completed. We're hopeful that at the end of that the government will see fit to recognize our needs in the future.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Bakopanos.

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

I have two questions. One is for the commissioner of the Correctional Service, and it has to do with something that was raised in the House, as well as in other situations, about the 50% quota system. Apparently it was stated by the members of the other party that half of the population would be in the community and half in the prisons.

Being the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and having the $32 million we put in for crime prevention, we certainly want to encourage initiatives where rehabilitation takes place. I think the minister referred to that also in his comments. Rehabilitation takes place in the community, with the help of the community, and we want the community to play a significant role.

Would either the minister or the commissioner like to comment on whether that 50% quota exists or not?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I will respond and I will let the commissioner add to my comments. He is well aware, as I am, that there are certainly no quotas. Public safety is always the number one issue, but we also have a high number of people incarcerated in this country. I think we're second to the U.S. In fact, we've been criticized in a number of areas for the number of people we have incarcerated.

We all know and understand that all offenders come from the community and will return to the community, and that's the job of the Correctional Service of Canada. It's called the Correctional Service of Canada; it's not Punishment Service of Canada. We have worked on that over the years and since I've come to this position.

I think you're aware of the addiction problem, and I referred to it in my remarks. We know the number one problem is that seven out of ten are addicted. So with the commissioner and other people involved in the Correctional Service of Canada, we certainly intend to address the problem we're well aware exists.

I'll let the commissioner expand on that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I don't think I can do much better, but I can—and that is very important—repeat what the minister has already said: there is no quota. There is a systematic effort to make sure people are made ready to meet the parole board when the law prescribes.

This whole exercise started out based on exactly what the minister said—the pursuit of a higher level of public safety. It was encouraged further by the Auditor General, who pointed out ways in which we could become more effective. One of the encouraging outcomes of that is as we are becoming more effective in the reintegration process, crime is going down in the client group we get out of institutions. That is what it is all about.

The 50-50 thing came in because at one point there was a need to ask what it was going to look like five or six years from now. At that time, most of the region thought it would probably be something in the vicinity of 50-50. We're getting better at doing these predictions now, and the suggestions are coming in from the regions showing more cautious numbers than the 50-50.

• 1710

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much for that answer.

My second question is sort of a follow-up to Mr. Marceau's question on the thousand-dollar bill. We know these days people are not, in fact, exchanging bills. They're using the computer system to move large amounts of money between different countries.

My question is directed to the director of CSIS—I'm sorry, sir, the minister can answer if he chooses—because you didn't touch in your remarks on the economic and industrial espionage in this country. That's why I felt it was more appropriate to ask you if CSIS has a mandate to that effect, and if there is anything you're doing to confront the problem. I don't think changing the bill will solve it.

I'm not saying I'm against that, but it's just one aspect or organized crime. Right now they move large amounts of money without even having to exchange that money between hands. It's done automatically by computer between different countries. So I was just wondering if you were given any mandate and whether anything is being done along those lines. Do you have a budget for it? Maybe I should ask the third question to go with it.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm glad. Ward was getting pretty comfortable.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I figured we should ask him a question.

Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): The issue of espionage, from our point of view, is in respect of state-driven espionage, rather than industrial espionage. That question would be more properly addressed to Commissioner Murray. They would deal with that subject, not CSIS. We're really only concerned with those cases where a state is exercising indirectly—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: It'll come back now. Why don't you try it, Lawrence?

A voice: It's a parole question.

Commr Philip Murray: I would be happy to refer it to the parole board. It is a very serious question and a serious issue.

Certainly the thousand-dollar bill is really one part of a much larger issue. The electronic transfer of funds is really where the future is. In our country the future is now, as we know. ATMs were considered leading-edge technology just ten years ago, and they're just taken for granted today. More and more around the world the use of technology to transfer funds is the way of doing business. That creates some really interesting and significant problems in the fight against organized crime. Clearly we need to have ways and means by which we can have access to that.

The money-laundering legislation the minister alluded to a little earlier around the whole issue of reporting suspicious transactions and reporting transactions over a certain amount, as they move from one country to another, we believe will be very helpful in that regard. There will be no panacea when you talk about electronic transfer, as we look to the future. But we need to stay ahead of it.

We have an advantage here in Canada because we are on the leading edge when it comes to the utilization of technology. We have a lot of high-tech firms here in Canada, so with cooperative arrangements between the public and private sectors we can be successful in that regard. We're very optimistic about this legislation getting up and in place. I think we can move on from there.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Cadman for a three-minute round.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a quick question.

Going back to the RCMP issue and the funding issue, Minister, I'd like to reduce this to something the people in my community can relate to.

As you may know, I come from one of the three constituencies in Surrey, and it has the largest detachment in Canada. We have a problem there—at least the chief superintendent tells me we have a problem. He tells me he's 18 people short out of a complement of 378, which is already a very poor ratio of police to residents. He tells me 18, the official number says 13, but he also tells me he has seven people on long-term disability, for some kind of long-term illness. That to me translates to 25 bodies missing, which sets a poor ratio for street patrol.

• 1715

On top of that, I see damaged cars in the police compound that aren't being replaced. Constituents are coming to me and telling me that they go in and they're told that anything under a $5,000 fraud will not be dealt with because they just don't have the time for the paperwork. Drug operations are being cut back.

I'm looking for some kind of assurance from the minister here that something is going to be done, because we're looking at a long, hot summer in Surrey. That puts it in a microcosm. We're looking at a very tough time on the streets. I'm going by what my chief superintendent out there tells me.

Contrary to some of the things we're being told, that it's not affecting operations, I'm assured by the members with whom I go out on ride-alongs that it is affecting operations. So I and my constituents are looking for some assurances that something is going to get done.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I am aware that you are truly concerned.

We were able, with some cooperation, to find some money for your division, but there's no question that there's no endless supply of money. Without going into a lot of repeating, you are aware that the resource review is under way. I don't think anybody in the whole process would want to see a lot of changes made until we have this resource review completed, which will be within a few months, and then that will hopefully indicate what the situation is in funding and what dollars need to be allocated.

The commissioner may wish to add to that, but I think that's about where we are.

Commr Philip Murray: Mr. Cadman, what you're saying is absolutely correct. We are very cash-strapped in terms of the operations overall, and certainly, as you say, Surrey is a microcosm of that.

We're very hopeful that the resource review will demonstrate what we believe to be the case, that there is systemic underfunding across the system. But the days of writing blank cheques are long over, and I think the Treasury Board wants to make sure that the business case is in fact made that all alternatives in terms of reallocations have been appropriately dealt with before they will issue additional funding dealing with those increased levels of workload.

I can only repeat what I said earlier, that we're hopeful that the resource review will address those issues. In the meantime, as I think your colleague, Mr. Abbott, said earlier, our members are doing an exceptional job in terms of getting through this period and putting in an exceptional number of voluntary hours of overtime because they want to provide an excellent service to their community, and they're doing the very best they can under difficult circumstances.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Grose.

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

I'm fascinated by this discussion of thousand-dollar bills. Only once in my life have I ever seen thousand-dollar bills, and I had them in my hand for only about fifteen seconds. That was on closing of a house deal. In those days, you had to do it that way or the final closing was held up for two or three days.

In any case, the Solicitor General says Canada also continues to be recognized as a world leader in research on sex offenders and for its innovations in sex offender treatment. To put it bluntly, if that is the case, God help the rest of the world. We had a case of a recycled sex offender just yesterday in Ottawa.

I'm going to get on my hobby horse. You've heard it before, and everyone is going to keep hearing it until I get what I want.

I do not blame the police system, the judicial system, the corrections system, or the parole system for what I consider our woeful record with sex offenders. What we're doing is treating sex offenders as criminals. They should be treated as very, very mentally unbalanced, sick criminals. As soon as they're apprehended by the police, they should be set aside from the regular justice system. What we're doing now is just not working.

We sentence them to five years, and the correctional people and the parole board have no choice but to let them go. The next time they offend, we sentence them to ten years. The same thing happens; they have to be let go, and they're still in the same shape as they were when they started. We haven't cured that problem yet. I think our record on rehabilitating petty thieves, safe-crackers, and bank robbers, especially bank robbers, is pretty good, but with sex offenders it's woefully lacking.

When are we going to get some action on changing the system? I don't want to blame anyone up here. The system needs to be changed to get the people up there looking after the criminals and the sick people looked after separately.

• 1720

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Ivan, certainly one is too many, without a doubt. To treat your question fairly, I'll let the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada respond with the process and how it's handled, and possibly the figures if he wishes, but in these issues, one is too many. All we can do is our best, but I would always say one is too many. I will leave it to the commissioner.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

I understand that your question goes further than corrections, and I appreciate that. What I can contribute here is a further explanation of what the minister said about Canada having a good record in research and actual treatment of sex offenders.

Correctional Service Canada has spent a significant amount of research resources over the years to look at sex offenders, because we and our ministers have shared the general view of the population that this is a very serious problem we have to deal with.

Over the years we have been able to develop programs, starting out with two programs back in 1988. There are now more than a hundred programs across the country. We have gone from about 70 offenders, I think it was, way back in the late 1980s, to approximately 2,000 offenders a year going through these programs.

I won't go through the details, but the overall result is that we are able, in rough numbers, to cut recidivism in half. That means that only one out of every two people who otherwise would recidivate to new sex offences actually do so under our system. It doesn't mean that they don't recidivate. They do. Half of them recidivate. That is of course what upsets us all, when they commit new offences in society. What we should be slightly encouraged about is that the number is at the level it is, compared to the population of sex offenders that we have.

The suggestion that we should involve the psychiatric system is a very valid one, and one we have pursued. We have some success in some areas, for instance, with l'Institut Pinel in Montreal. We have good rapport with them and a good contract. That's where the worst of our sex offenders in Quebec are being treated.

But I say with some regret, like you, I think, that in many other parts of the country we have had to build that capacity within the prison system, because there is no desire on the part of the general psychiatric system to take these individuals.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I am not a language expert, but the word "quota" in English might not mean the same thing as the word "quota" in French.

I would like to take up where Ms. Bakopanos left off. I have with me some interesting documents. In the minutes of the general staff assembly that was held on March 12, 1998 in Calgary, we can read the following sentence. I apologize for my accent.

[English]

The Government, under our present Solicitor General, Andy Scott, has indicated that by the year 2000 he would like to see 50% of our inmates in the institution and 50% of our inmates in the community.

[Translation]

A little further on it says:

[English]

Some of the cases that we release from here may go wrong, but the Warden said that he will stand behind us.

[Translation]

I also have an "Editorial from the Commissioner", Mr. Ingstrup, with a lovely photo. Already, in 1998, he said:

An analysis of the inmate population and offenders in the community leads us to believe that about half of the offenders for which we are responsible should be incarcerated and that the other half should be managed within the community.

I also have a letter from Mr. Ingstrup, this time without a photo. It said:

[English]

When asked to give a better sense of the implications of this initiative, you proposed to me that a 50-50 split in each region was achievable by the year 2000.

• 1725

[Translation]

Finally, Mr. B. Reynolds, Deputy Commissioner, Ontario, gives a few figures and says:

[English]

Obviously if this trend continues we will distance ourselves even further from our agreed upon goal. I must reinforce my message delivered when we first met, that the reintegration agenda is and continues to be one of my main priorities.

[Translation]

There might be something that I don't understand. This might be called an objective, but I would like for you to explain the practical difference between an objective, or a goal as it says in the texts, and a quota. I don't want a definition out of the dictionary, but a practical explanation.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you. Number one, as has been said here before, there are no quotas.

I'll let the commissioner respond to this. I'm sure it can be a goal. But what we have to remember is that all offenders come from the community and return to the community, and through Correctional Service Canada there's a process to integrate them back into the community, through the parole board, of course. The number one priority in all of this is public safety, and that will never be jeopardized. I know the commissioner will tell you that is possibly where we could be. I think it could be a goal, but a goal only to achieve a better Correctional Service Canada process. I'll now turn it over to the commissioner.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Minister.

I would continue the explanation you gave to Mr. Marceau, but I would expand it a little bit by saying it is clear that in some of these publications, memos, and meeting minutes you have read, some confusing language has found its way into them that could indicate that here is what we have to do.

What it is really about is what I explained to this committee during my appearance a couple of years ago, which is that we were responding to the Auditor General's report, and that responding well to the Auditor General's report would also meet the minister of the day's goal of having what he called—and the government has never talked about anything but—a more balanced distribution between the institution and the community.

Based on that and based on the Auditor General's report, we looked at what are the areas in which we have to improve our performance, and there were 16 of them. We looked at these 16 areas of improvement—levers, if you wish—and we asked ourselves at the time these things were written what we thought the distribution between community offenders and offenders in institutions would look like if we were successful in all these 16 areas and what would be the outcome. At that time people said that most likely it would be 50%. It was not a goal. It was an outcome if we did corrections as well as we could.

That was a preliminary assessment, and as I've also said in this committee, we continue to do these assessments. The latest assessments we are getting in from the regions suggest that the outcome will not be 50%. There will be variances from one region to another. For instance, the Pacific region has a lot more lifers who cannot be released on parole, so, obviously, they will have a higher proportion of people behind bars than regions with a lower proportion of lifers.

What we are doing here is not changing goals. We are changing the predictions of what the outcome of good corrections will be as we get better insight into how these mechanisms work.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Minister, I understand you have a commitment at 5.30.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes.

• 1730

The Chair: I would suggest that perhaps some of your...

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think what we agreed to previously, if it's okay, is to do whatever you can this evening. Most of the questions were directed at me during this hour and a quarter, but if you then wish to have the officials back, that's a decision for the committee. But I thank you very much.

The Chair: If you have to go, that's fine, but if there are some more questions for the panel, perhaps we can continue.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My question is for the minister.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I don't mind, Paul. I'll see what I can give you.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Just briefly, then, Mr. Minister, in your comments you've listed four priorities, and I assume they're in order of importance. Now that you've been in the portfolio for roughly six months, as a personal priority as opposed to a departmental priority, if you could make changes in any one area, what changes...

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Paul, thank you very much.

They're all important. Citizen engagement is very important to the RCMP and all the police forces across the country. Of course combating organized crime involves everybody under the Office of the Solicitor General, and it's a major priority. But if I were to have one priority under Correctional Service Canada, it would be to address the addiction problem.

When you are fully aware that the problem is being addicted, mostly to alcohol, where I come from in life, if you have a problem and know what it is, then it's most appropriate you address it to the best of your ability. In fact that's what I'm trying to do.

Though great programs existed before I arrived, what I want to do is see if there's some way we can change this even the slightest bit. It's a sad reality, but if you have trouble with alcohol and you go along the path in life whereby the only way you can get funds is by breaking the law, then when you need a drink, you have to break the law in order to get the drink. If you're addicted, you pretty well must do it. There are many other areas to address. There are three agencies under my jurisdiction, but that's one, for sure, that I intend to—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: You also mentioned that the subcommittee has been dealing with the whole issue of citizen engagement. I think that particularly in the corrections area, that is very important. One of the members of the committee has said several times since the beginning of our work that there has been quite an attitude change on his part toward the whole area of corrections because he now sees it in operation. Just today I signed a letter to the editor of my local newspaper because the newspaper contained all kinds of errors, such as life should be life and all the usual things you hear that are incorrect. So that's certainly an area where I would encourage a lot of work to be done.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I appreciate that, Paul. When I made the announcement in Halifax I had the opportunity to meet quite a number of the members of the RCMP, and they certainly appreciate the people who are involved and who help in the community on weekends.

Of course what Correctional Service Canada does really is to integrate people back into society. Whether we like it or not, if somebody commits a crime, they're not going to be in prison forever, so there has to be a method to bring people back into the mainstream of society. We do that to the best of our ability, and we're certainly open to any suggestions. This committee is listening to suggestions, because you're reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. If there are any suggestions as to how to improve it, there's nothing I'd like more than to hear about something that would make it work better.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. DeVillers.

Again, thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Do we wish to continue with the balance of the panel for a few more minutes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Keddy, it's your turn.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before the minister leaves, I'd like to thank him for attending today. I'm sure it's appreciated.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

• 1735

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know who to address this to, so you guys can decide. I'm not the justice committee critic for the Conservative Party; Peter MacKay is. You're well aware of that. Peter is unable to be here today. I owe him too many favours, so I ended up being here for two hours. It's been lovely. I've enjoyed it very much.

Ms Eleni Bakopanos: You're welcome back any time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: As someone who doesn't have a background in law and as someone who obviously has an interest in the proceedings here, and listening to some of the comments made today, there is a difference in the applying of a law or the application of a law or the coming into force of a law and the enforcement of that law. I'm beginning to pick that up.

Specifically, on the long-gun registration, I want to ask this question to whoever should be answering it. For those of us who represent rural ridings, which I do, obviously if you became an MP you don't have a criminal record, so you either didn't get caught or you didn't make many mistakes along the way. If you're a hunter or if you're a farmer who keeps livestock, you probably have a requirement to have a long gun.

I can tell you for a fact that the law is coming into effect on I believe December 31, 2002, and many of my neighbours and many of the people I know in rural Nova Scotia have no intention of registering all their guns. There's a huge problem here. It's being put off. Maybe people will, or maybe people won't; I can't speak for them. But they're definitely not going to register until the last minute.

Is there any plan to handle the backlog? I realize the dollars involved, and I realize that most people don't want to break the law. But is there a plan? Because there's going to be a tremendous backlog of firearms to be registered in the last six months of this bill.

Commr Philip Murray: I'd be happy to attempt to address that, Mr. Chairman.

The RCMP is responsible for the maintenance of the gun registry, and of course the registrations have already started, as of December 1 last year. There are now about 56,000 long guns that have been registered.

There are incentives provided for people to register early on. If you register prior to that date that you mentioned, within the five-year window of opportunity, it's significantly cheaper than waiting until after the period is completed. Also, after that period is completed you have to pay for each of the weapons, whereas now you just pay once for all the weapons you may have.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We call them guns, Commissioner. We don't call them weapons. Thank you.

The Chair: Can we have Commissioner Murray answer the question, please?

Commr Philip Murray: As a result of that, those incentives are designed really to get people to commit early on in the process.

We have a history in Canada of the rule of law. People tend to obey the law in this country. I'm very optimistic that by the time we reach the year 2003 that will be the case in relation to this piece of legislation as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: On my right, any questions?

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Just one quick one.

The Chair: John McKay will go first.

Mr. John McKay: Do I have to split my time?

The Chair: You don't have much time.

Mr. John McKay: As you know, we've been hearing testimony on Bill C-284. Ministers thought it such a keen idea, they introduced Bill C-69. I take the point that the individuals come from the community and have to be returned to the community.

In the area of those who are pedophiles, sex offenders, etc., your own testimony is that the rate of rehabilitation is one out of two. That may or may not be optimistic. I think we heard testimony that says that it's something less optimistic than that. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to how that segment of the criminal population can be balanced with the need for public safety.

• 1740

This is a question that keeps coming up over and over and over again. We attempt in various ways to address it but don't necessarily achieve it. There is a sense—and I would say, almost arguably, a well-founded sense—that we're not doing the right thing with respect to how we treat particularly pedophiles, but sex offenders in general, in terms of their return to the community.

If you had an ability to suggest a way of sentencing or a way of dealing with the reintegration, what would your advice be to the committee?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think we can safely say that what we know in Canada about these things is what is known in the world about these things. It's regrettable that we don't know more. So one of my priorities—and you heard the minister's priorities—is to continue to invest in research in this area.

It's tremendous when you think of the kinds of results that have come out of the research we have done up to this point, with only half of the victims being victimized today, as opposed to what would have happened if we had not done it. And I am confident that we can go further.

Our research division works with a lot of other external university institutes, etc., and also internationally. What we are seeing is that they are starting to segment the sex offenders into different groups. Obviously pedophiles do not need the same kind of treatment as people who are violent rapists. It's two completely different mechanisms, and so on and so forth. So we are categorizing our sex offenders and trying to get into a better understanding of what it is that drives different groups to crime.

I'm not a psychologist or anything close to it, but I do understand that for pedophiles there is no magical cure. If people's sexual direction is so unfortunate that it directs itself toward children, there's nothing you can do about that. But you can teach these people what it takes to stay out of jail by not getting in trouble. You can teach them some early warning signs where they can still adjust their behaviour so they don't end up in crime and subsequently in jail.

We can give them tools, in other words, to better manage their lives. Interestingly enough, the vast majority, in our experience, of pedophiles are as interested as we are in not getting into that situation. The problem is, they don't have the ability to do something else until it's too late. It's a little bit the same as we see with certain types of alcoholics. If they go beyond the consumption of a certain quantum of alcohol, they are unable to control the system. So for them, the important thing is never to get close to that limit. It's the same thing for pedophiles. We have some significant success in that area—not 100%, but we can do more work, and I think that's the way we should be working, getting closer into understanding special segments.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

I think at this time we will conclude the meeting. I appreciate the panel being here today.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Will they be returning?

[English]

The Chair: That's the last round.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Will we have the opportunity and the honour to have with us—

[English]

The Chair: If there are other individuals who would like to hear from them, Mr. Marceau, we'll do our very best to have these gentlemen back again. If all parties want to hear from the panel members separately, then please notify us by tomorrow and we'll do our best to fit you in within the timeframe we have.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Not now?

[English]

The Chair: Pardon, Richard?

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can I do it now? Can I give you names?

The Chair: Sure.

The meeting is adjourned.