JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

Á

1105

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Á

1125

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

The Chair

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ)

Á

1130

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Á

1140

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, PC)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Á

1150

Mr. Peter MacKay

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Á

1155

Ms. Lucie McClung

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

Â

1200

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Â

1210

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Peter MacKay

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Ian Glen (Chair, National Parole Board)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

Mr. John Maloney

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Â

1230

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

Â

1235

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. John McKay

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. John McKay

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Ms. Lucie McClung

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose

Â

1245

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Ian Glen

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Ms. Lucie McClung

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

The Chair

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Â

1255

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 082

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 82nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and bid adieu to all of our particular visitors.

    Pursuant to an order of reference dated Tuesday, February 28, today we'll be considering a study of the estimates for 2002-2003: votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 under the Solicitor General.

    To that end, we have appearing today, Lawrence MacAulay, Solicitor General of Canada. I'll leave it to Mr. MacAulay to introduce those attending with him.

    Mr. Minister, welcome.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here today to review the spending estimates and priorities of the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

    Joining me this morning are Deputy Solicitor General Nicole Jauvin; RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli; Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Lucie McClung; Chair of the National Parole Board, Ian Glen; and Director of CSIS, Mr. Elcock.

    Before I take your questions, I'd like to spend a few moments to reflect on what the portfolio of Solicitor General has accomplished over the past year and to explain how we plan to continue our efforts to protect public safety and security in the year ahead.

    On September 11 the world changed forever. The horrifying events of that day affected all of us. The Government of Canada took swift action to improve Canada's security and counterterrorism capacity and to ensure that we are fully part of the global effort against terrorists.

    Since that day, my department, the RCMP, and CSIS have worked flat out on this file, including helping develop Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act. I would like to take this opportunity to mark the contribution and hard work made by these agencies.

    The government moved quickly to develop its anti-terrorism plan, bringing in a range of measures to prevent terrorism and protect Canadians from terrorist acts; to implement measures to identify, prosecute, convict, and punish terrorists; to protect the Canada-U.S. border from terrorists and economic fallout; and to work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice.

    In the December 2001 budget, we invested over $7 billion to implement this plan. The RCMP was given $500 million in new funding to give it the resources it needed to fill resource and technology gaps and to provide greater public safety from terrorism.

    We also committed an additional $334 million to CSIS. This was an increase of 32% in its budget. It will ensure that CSIS has the staff and the technology it needs for its counterterrorism efforts.

    Included in the budget allocation for national security was $4.9 million in the budget of the Solicitor General for enhancements to the Canadian public safety information network, CPSIN, and the counterterrorism operational readiness program.

    The counterterrorism operational readiness program is dedicated to improving the state of readiness of local, regional, and national organizations against terrorist attacks.

    The development of the Canada public safety information network is critical to our continuing fight against terrorism and crimes in general. Our intention with this network, which is a key part of our integrated justice information initiative, is to bring criminal justice information sharing fully into the 21st century.

    Next Monday in British Columbia I will be opening a special conference on technology and terrorism that includes federal, provincial, and American officials.

    Speaking of technology, I would remind honourable members that the $115 million renewal of the CPIC system, which celebrates its 30th anniversary next month, is well under way. CPIC is a remarkable national achievement that remains the envy of many countries in the world. With this renewal, CPIC will be an even more useful law enforcement tool and a critical part of the modern Canada public safety information network.

    This fall we will launch a major milestone with the first part of the national criminal justice index launch. This index will be the electronic keystone to CPSIN. Just like thirty years ago when CPIC was launched, we're on the verge of a major breakthrough by creating a powerful new public safety tool.

    We've also undertaken a $47 million overhaul of the Correctional Service's offender management system and a new conditional release system for the National Parole Board.

Á  (1110)  

    These are key investments in public safety. The integration of justice information to serve public safety better is something we continue to work on with all our partners.

    Let me return to Bill C-36 for a moment. The Anti-Terrorism Act ensures that Canada can play its role in the global effort to disable and dismantle terrorist organizations. It strikes the right balance between civil liberties and national security. It gives police and national security agencies more tools to monitor, investigate, and detain terrorists.

    Especially important is the fact that it enables us to deter and disable terrorists by striking at their organizations and financing. It is now easier to freeze terrorists' assets, to deny or remove their charitable status, and to prosecute those who participate in or finance the activities of terrorist groups.

    Under the listing process in the act, the government will create a list of terrorist entities, which under the new law will be liable to have their assets frozen and potentially seized and forfeited. There are severe consequences and very stiff penalties for persons and organizations who knowingly support these entities or deal in the property or finances of these listed groups.

    I know terrorism has preoccupied many people's thoughts and has dominated the headlines; however, I would like to remind the committee that fighting organized crime remains a major priority for the portfolio. In April 2001 the government provided $150 million to combat organized crime and smuggling across Canada and to strengthen partnership efforts to address cross-border crime challenges.

    Last June we stepped up our fight against organized crime with the passage of Bill C-24 in the House of Commons. The bill came into force on January 7. Its strong measures to fight organized crime are important to our ongoing efforts to combat terrorists. For example, the new organized crime law allows for the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders, an effective tool for getting at the profits generated by criminal organizations outside of Canada.

    The legislation gives police and prosecutors the tools they need to target and dismantle organized crime networks at all levels. The law enforcement justification provisions will help insulate police officers from criminal liability when they commit certain acts in pursuit of organized crime. It also contains safeguards to ensure both control and accountability, balancing police independence with strict limitations and conditions.

    The Solicitor General portfolio has been hard at work in implementing the legislative provisions of Bill C-24. Hundreds of RCMP officers and other law enforcement personnel have attended training sessions across the country on the law enforcement justification part of the legislation.

    Organized crime is an international problem and has been on the agenda of several summits of the G-8. Next month at Mont Tremblant the Minister of Justice and I will be hosting the justice and interior ministers meeting. We will be looking at ways to continue our common progress against transnational crime.

    Turning to the correctional side of my portfolio, I am sure very few people know that more than 10,000 Canadians work with CSC as volunteers in supporting the safe return of offenders into the community. I think it is fitting to emphasize this during National Volunteer Week. Volunteers help in many community-based, not-for-profit organizations that run over 150 halfway houses across this country. These types of facilities operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, providing a range of support for offenders so they can return as contributing, law-abiding members of society. This is a real, unsung success story. To put it simply, we are making a difference.

    Our correctional programs and parole system are effective public safety tools. Canada is considered to have one of the best prison and parole systems in the world. However, the commissioner already informed you in February that CSC has identified the need to look at renewal in terms of both dealing with the operations and with projected vacancies in the management ranks over the next three to five years.

Á  (1115)  

    At the operational level we are faced with an even more complex and difficult offender population. For instance, the growing number of offenders involved in organized crime and the drug trade calls for more intensive responses. Each staff member must have the necessary support and the right tools to promote change in offender behaviour and to do so with a more structured approach.

    I am concerned about substance abuse, both in terms of crime prevention and offender treatment. It is a tremendous problem. Most offenders in the system—almost 70%—admit to having a substance abuse problem. But we are making progress. The number of drug tests coming back positive has dropped significantly over the last seven years.

    Next week I will be hosting a conference in Prince Edward Island on the latest research on addictions and causes of crime. I feel very strongly that we have to improve our research efforts and continue to improve our substance abuse programs in penitentiaries. I say this because we will not have true rehabilitation unless inmates are treated for the problems that got them into prison in the first place.

    Crime prevention is another key to making a difference in public safety. I am very pleased to note that more communities are playing a proactive role in crime prevention initiatives. They are no longer simply reacting to violence but are actively working with us to prevent violence and crime. And that is the approach of the RCMP, to emphasize a combination of prevention and community policing.

    The national strategy on community safety and crime prevention has not only proven its worth but has surpassed our expectations. Last July, the Minister of Justice and I announced $145 million in new funding to expand the strategy to support the community-based response to crime.

    But no matter how much money we put into enforcement and corrections, it is better for everyone if we can prevent the crime in the first place.

    Thank you very much.

    If you have questions, we would be very pleased to respond to you.

Á  (1120)  

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

    I'd be surprised if we don't have some questions.

    Mr. Sorenson, you have seven minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Minister, as well as the commissioners, for being here today, although I may say that having all of you at one time is a little disappointing. I'm sure the questions will go on for a while.

    My first question is to the Commissioner of Correctional Services. After remaining fairly constant for most of the 1990s, Canada's correctional system—the system you're responsible for—actually had fewer offenders in it in 1999-2000 than it had before that. In fact, as stated in page 7 of the main estimates:

In 2000, the incarceration rate in Canada was 118 per 100,000 as down from 123 per 100,000 in 1999.

    There was, according to the estimates you give, a 9% decline in the number of inmates in federal institutions from 1996-97 to 2000-01.

    My first question is, what do you attribute this 9% reduction to? Is it attributable to a decrease in crime? Is it attributable to the use of conditional sentences and alternative measures? Is it attributable simply to a higher rate of parole? Or is it all of the above?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: First of all, I would like to say that crime overall has been reducing in this country and in the United States. We incarcerate to about one-fifth or one-sixth the per capita rate of the United States, but in general the crime rate has declined. That would be one of the reasons why we have fewer people in the system.

    It's also important to note that even though we are much lower than the United States, we are much higher than many other countries around the world.

    I would ask the Commission of Corrections to expand on this.

    Commissioner Lucie McClung (Correctional Service Canada): Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Chair, I cannot point to any specific, integrated studies to respond to your question. But most certainly one factor would be a reduction in crime, and in particular violent crime.

    I think the patterns of sentencing exercised by the various courts in each province certainly have an effect. I cannot say, however, based on my knowledge of the people who are accessing conditional release, that it would be a major factor, because the time served prior to the first release remains relatively constant.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My second question is again to Ms. McClung. It's a question that has been posed a number of times in the House. I would like to pose it to you today.

    It has been reported in the Toronto Sun, by columnist Alan Cairns, that dozens of individuals—not just one, as the Solicitor General indicated, but dozens of prison inmates—working for CORCAN, a job training agency, have earned hundreds of dollars weekly in incentive payments. That is, incentive payments for doing their jobs and working within the different industries while in prison. This has been over at least the last six months. Furthermore, in November and December of last year, some of the inmates at Joyceville pocketed between $900 and $1,000 a week over a two-week period.

    I'm sure, Ms. McClung, given that this has been in the House, you were sure this question was coming. My question is, how many inmates have in fact received incentive payments through CORCAN and how much have they received?

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think, first of all, to my honourable colleague, it's important to know that we have CORCAN and in the United States they have UNICOR. We have here a magazine with John Ashcroft, the Attorney General of the United States, indicating how important UNICOR is to the United States prison system, and we have CORCAN in this system.

    What we try to do, and are quite successful at in our prison system, is to rehabilitate people and understand that if they are productive in the system, it's better for the country and it's better for their rehabilitation.

    I'll leave the commissioner to tell you more about it.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: More specifically, we understand what CORCAN does. I understand how it helps reintegrate and get people ready. No one is questioning CORCAN. What we're questioning is the incentive pay to the inmates while they were in there. According to the paper, there have been records of $700, and maybe more, per week paid out.

    Our question is more specific. How many inmates have received this incentive pay and how much money has been paid out?

    And I'd like a response from Ms. McClung, please.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's important to know that in both UNICOR in the United States and in Canada, the incentive pay rate is about the same.

    But if you wish, I'll let the commissioner respond in detail to this.

    Commr Lucie McClung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think it's important that we set the context of CORCAN and its mandate, not in terms of the importance of work, as was recognized by everybody here, but in terms of the special operating agency from a financial perspective.

    The whole idea behind setting up a special operating agency was that CORCAN will be self-sustainable. This means that we would not exercise undue pressure on taxpayers and we would increase efficiencies through revenues and through the structured use of offenders' time. Therefore, the pay system, and in particular the incentive pay part of CORCAN, should be self-sustainable.

    I will be able to report whether this is indeed the fact after the public accounts and all the books have been closed somewhere toward the end of June, which are normal accounting processes. I am told that they are in the black, but I would like to see it in fact.

    With respect to incentive pay, we are at the same rate as the United States, the same number, potentially $13.80 per day in Canadian funds, which is the current policy as of mid-April. The United States has an incentive of $14 U.S. per day.

    We have records that are based on offenders. This is a massive amount of information that is contained in our computers. I've asked for a review so that I will be able to answer your questions specifically, which I should be receiving toward May 20. I have it in Joyceville, but I don't have it for across the country.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Commissioner.

    Monsieur Bellehumeur, pour sept minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, you noted the following in the report that you read to us:

...the growing number of offenders involved in organized crime and the drug trade calls for more intensive responses.

    I agree with that statement. There's no denying the fact that a growing number of drug offenders are gravitating toward organized crime. I also agree that we are dealing with a serious problem, one that needs to be examined closely.

    Even before the new provisions of Bill C-24 were introduced, a major undertaking was launched in Quebec, Opération Printemps 2001. Officials cracked down on drug dealers and organized crime. However, judging from the statistics and from the experts have to say, the drug problem continues unabated. Yet, it's not the money that's lacking to deal with the problem in Quebec. Taxpayers ultimately will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to cover the cost of the “Mom” Boucher or Hells Angels trials.

    In Quebec—and I will focus more specifically on Quebec because I represent that constituency, federal legislation appears to be enforced properly and no effort is spared in the process either.

    As far as the RCMP is concerned, I contacted various police forces on several occasion, since I'm the party's Justice critic and I've heard about all kinds of goings-on in Quebec. To avoid making any mistakes or implicating anyone other than myself, I will confine my remarks to the situation in my riding.

    Specifically, I'm concerned about Saint-Michel-des-Saints and the community of Manouane which has a serious problem with marijuana cultivation. Apparently, the culprits are a gang of five or six individuals known as troublemakers on the reserve. Not surprisingly, the suicide rate among local youths is quite high. The RCMP has been called on several occasions, but has never visited Manouane. I realize that this is a vast territory, but the problem is no less extensive.

    I also know for a fact that the RCMP has many a number of raids on private residences where marijuana was being grown. Some officers have told me that the quantities of drugs seized are so large and the operations to combat drugs so vast that other investigations have to be put on hold.

    I see that your budget includes an addition $75 million for operating costs over last year. Having observed the increased emphasis on national defence since September 11, I have to wonder if there will be much left for the RCMP to conduct operations in the field, increase staff levels and take the necessary steps to enforce the law. In my view, which is shared by many people in my region, federal legislation is all well and good, but enforcement is left to the provinces. Perhaps the RCMP isn't doing everything it can to enforce federal legislation.

    Do you have any plans to increase RCMP staffing levels so that the force can do its job in Quebec? I realize the situation is different in Western Canada where the RCMP presence is much greater. I'll come back to that if time permits. Will the RCMP receive the additional funding required to wage an effective war, not only against organized crime in Quebec, but also against the serious drug problem of marijuana cultivation?

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    Organized crime is the number one priority, of course, of the RCMP, and I would think for many if not all police forces across this country.

    You mentioned many things, but in Operation Spring Cleanup, I believe it was called, the RCMP were involved with the SQ. It's certainly my understanding, from both levels of government, that the SQ and the RCMP cooperate very well and work well together.

    As for funding, over the past two years, as my honourable colleague is well aware, we've put just under $10 billion in the public safety envelope. It's a lot of money.

    But the drug problem is a Canadian and an American problem. It's an international problem. That's why we have to have forces like the RCMP who deal with other forces worldwide. We will provide the funding that's needed in order to make sure the RCMP can fulfil its mandate. We have the commissioner here, and I'm sure he's quite ready to expand on that.

    Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Minister.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

    Mr. Chairman, over the past five years, the federal government has increased the RCMP's budget by nearly 35 per cent. I for one am very satisfied with the additional level of funding. However, I do want to point out that a substantial portion of this increase went to C Division in Quebec.

    I do appreciate your concerns. Despite the additional funding, we are not in a position to comply with every single investigation request. To deal with the situation, we rely on intelligence gathering so that we can assign priority to investigating cases that pose the greatest threat to Quebecers and other Canadians.

    After gathering the intelligence required, we work with the SQ, the Montreal Police and other police forces. We constitute multidisciplinary teams to investigate the most high-risk cases. For example with respect to narcotics, we have conducted some extremely successful investigations. Of course, some work remains to be done in Quebec and elsewhere across the country. The situation is much the same in the United States and in other democratic countries. The fact remains that we have made a dent in organized crime, even though there is work left to do. As RCMP Commissioner, I am determined to wage this battle.

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, for seven minutes.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I've got a couple of things I'd like to ask. They mostly have to do with the RCMP. I note with respect to the upcoming G-8 event in Kananaskis that the Calgary police have dipped into the federal security budget to buy armoured vehicles to deal with protesters. The RCMP has yet to respond to the exhortation by the head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP that it apologize for the use of pepper spray against APEC protesters, and a number of other things at the APEC demonstrations. I'm sure the commissioner is aware of Ms. Heafey's request that the RCMP do this.

    Given that the police, not necessarily the RCMP, are going to have armoured vehicles, I wonder if it's going to look like a war zone in Calgary instead of a political demonstration zone. It seems to me that a lot of people who are concerned about the acceleration of tensions around these events on both sides would feel better if the RCMP heeded the request of the complaints commissioner and at least express some regret over what happened at APEC.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    The RCMP has indicated a number of times what's required and what's not required in purchasing infrastructure for the G-8 summit. We have to deal with the RCMP and make sure they have the proper infrastructure in place that they can provide security for the leaders of the G-8 when they come to this country. That's a responsibility for the country when you host the G-8. We will make sure that the police--of course, as led by the RCMP--indicate clearly what's needed to provide security at these types of events.

    You mentioned two vehicles....

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: My question is, why hasn't there been an apology when one has been requested?

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Justice Hughes dealt extensively with the APEC report and made a number of recommendations. As the commissioner, I accepted all of those recommendations and implemented all but two. I did not agree with those two recommendations, but could not have implemented them even if I had wanted to because they were outside my power. They dealt with legislation, which I am certainly not in a position to do.

    So I accepted all of those 17 recommendations. Nowhere in the report did Justice Hughes, who handled this inquiry, request an apology. As the commissioner, I clearly stated, in my written report and in the press conference I gave, that we made mistakes and learned from those mistakes.

    It's interesting that we've heard the words “war zone”. In Quebec City, for example, there were over 20 observers from around the world who observed what took place. Every one of those observers who talked to us after Quebec City said they could not believe how the men and women in uniform from all the police forces that participated showed such restraint and respect for the rights of the people who were there demonstrating. There was unanimity on that point.

    This morning I gave a speech to a number of people. The topic had nothing to do with APEC, and so on, but a number of those people went out of their way to tell me they were at APEC, Quebec City, and Windsor, and they complimented us on how well the police officers, including members of the RCMP, showed restraint and respect for the rights of those demonstrators.

    We don't go to war zones. Our police officers are not out there to war with anybody. We're there to do our job, which is to protect and ensure the security of elected officials who chose to meet in a certain location. We also balance that against the right of individuals to demonstrate under the charter, and we respect those rights also.

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Of course, not everyone who came to APEC was an elected official. Some of them were dictators. So let's just keep that on the record.

    My question had to do with what was requested by the head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. It didn't have to do with Mr. Hughes' report. That still hasn't been addressed.

    What is the relationship between the RCMP and other bodies? For instance, the privacy commissioner has said that in his view the cameras that are stationed on the streets of Kelowna should be withdrawn; they're an invasion of Canadian privacy, and he's requested the RCMP to do that. The RCMP public complaints commissioner is saying there should be an apology. You say you've learned from your mistakes, and I take that as a given. There are many things that have been done better.

    On the other hand, when you say you've learned from your mistakes, which ones? It's one thing to say you've learned from your mistakes; it's another thing to actually outline what the mistakes were. There could be mistakes on how to control people better, or mistakes on how not to infringe on people's democratic rights. Not all mistakes are equal.

    So I just wonder, perhaps, if the Solicitor General.... What do you think the relationship is between the privacy commissioner and the RCMP? Can they just kind of slough off what the privacy commissioner says? What's the relationship between the RCMP and the public complaints body? Are they just speaking into the void? Do they have no power? In fact, they've asked for more power, so maybe you could tell us whether or not it's the position of the government that they should be given the power they've asked for.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As my honourable colleague is well aware, the Public Complaints Commission has what is required to fulfil their mandate. I can also assure you--and I'm sure the commissioner can too--that as far as the camera is concerned, the RCMP is evaluating its efficiency and what will or will not be done, based on the efficiency of looking at public safety. When that is done, if any changes are to take place and if a policy is to be put in place, one way or the other, concerning cameras there or anywhere else across this country involving the RCMP, that will be done.

    Commissioner, do you wish to add to that?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Efficiency isn't the only value. It might be efficient to round everybody up.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're absolutely right. What I said, my honourable friend, is that the value of the camera is going to be totally evaluated.

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about one camera. There are not cameras; it is one camera. We are doing an evaluation. The privacy commissioner has written to me stating that in using this camera, as we use it from time to time, only when we have intelligence that leads us to believe a crime will be committed is it actually activated. It's not activated at any other time in a public place. He said in the letter that I am respecting the letter of the law; I am not operating outside of the letter of the law. I've undertaken, because of his concerns, to do this evaluation to determine where we go from here, and I will do extensive consultation before any other steps are taken.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Peter MacKay, you have seven minutes.

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

    Thank you to the Solicitor General and all the officials and department heads.

    I'd first like to ask the Commissioner of the RCMP something. In the aftermath of September 11 it was widely reported that there was an assessment done of some of the ongoing investigations by your department, the RCMP. My question is with respect to some of the priorities and some of the perceptions of those investigations.

    It was indicated that there were active organized crime investigations that had to be put aside to specifically focus on terrorist activity within Canada. Certainly, there was a heightened public awareness of that need, yet it's clear that one of the files the RCMP continued to actively pursue was that of the allegations against the former Prime Minister and the decision to continue with that investigation. I point to that specifically because of the decision that was taken by the RCMP not to pursue anything surrounding allegations against the current Prime Minister about involvement in financial dealings in a golf course in his riding.

    That is highly questionable. I would ask the RCMP commissioner if there is some reasoning behind this. I know these are active files, but you had one file that has been ongoing now for over ten years, yet there was another file involving what appeared to be a significant amount of evidence that was known to involve allegations of inappropriate approaches that were made to the president of the Business Development Bank. People were fired, people like Jean Carle were brought in, and there were allegations of sanitizing files. It was a very tangled web, if you will, and that file was dismissed within a matter of weeks. You and the ethics counsellor said that everything was okay, so you were not in the best of company in making that assessment.

    I'm wondering if you can shed any light on the priorities and perception of that particular decision. One question specifically related to the Shawinigan BDC debacle is, was there ever any actual investigation done into the sanitization of files at the BDC by Mr. Carle or by Mr. Luc Provencher? Did that ever happen? That question was asked to the current industry minister and the past industry minister, Brian Tobin. Did that ever happen?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. MacKay, I think it's fair to say that with the way the RCMP is set up in this country, it's not the first time a large number of officers have been put on a certain case. For example, the Swissair tragedy is one example of where they have had to take on special priorities. But most of your question deals with details in investigations, and I believe I'll leave that with the commissioner.

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, Mr. MacKay is correct. In the aftermath of September 11, when the full issue of terrorism took on a different light, there was a serious redeployment of resources in collaboration with CSIS, other police forces, and other federal and provincial agencies and so on. There were serious reallocations.

    But those reallocations did not in any way diminish other priorities, in particular organized crime. Organized crime did not become a lesser priority. It's just that terrorism became a higher priority for us, equal to organized crime. So we did make serious redeployments.

    Since then, because we have received substantially increased resources from the government, we've been able to reduce the number of reallocations or redistributions of resources. Some files were, in effect, put on hold--but based on a very rigid priority system to ensure that the most serious files would continue to be handled. That said, there were some files that didn't get done or were put on the shelf temporarily. Right now, we don't have a lot of resources deployed in areas other than where they should be. There are very few such resources compared with September 11.

    So I am very satisfied. The fact is we have been more effective in reprioritizing, together with the increased resources. I'm very satisfied that all major organized crime files are well in hand and are being worked on actively.

    In terms of the second question, I'm not going to make any comments on any investigations that are actively ongoing, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: You would admit, though, that the Airbus investigation has continued, and that you have a significant 10 to 15 members of the force actively pursuing allegations against the former Prime Minister?

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: As I said, we have active investigations ongoing, and I'm not going to get into details about those, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you concerned, Mr. Zaccardelli, about allegations of politicization of your office—the RCMP—allegations that relate to the Prime Minister's Office, Francine Ducros, and situations involving direct relationships with yourself? This has to worry you. You're a professional police officer with a long and very credible record in the RCMP. This has to affect you in your office. Does the public perception of politicization of the RCMP concern you?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think it's fair to say the public perception of the RCMP, not only in this country but also around the world, is second to none. The fact of the matter is, it investigates what it should investigate, and very few people in this country would question whether the RCMP is not handling investigations properly. It is a police force with probably the best credentials in the world.

    I think it is a touch unfair to indicate that the RCMP would do anything but that. In this country and everywhere else, it has that respect. So I'm sure this committee would never want to ever touch investigations; neither would I, nor the government, nor anybody. The RCMP handles investigations. I would never question its authority or ability to handle them.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: On my question about the sanitization—

    The Chair: Mr. Myers for seven minutes. Mr. MacKay's time is up.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo--Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I quite resent Mr. MacKay's point with respect to politicization of the RCMP. It is an unfair and quite frankly a cheap political shot.

    Commissioner Zaccardelli stands before us today as a man of enormous integrity and as a man who has done his job very well through the years, and will continue to do so in a manner befitting his office. To imply otherwise is not only incorrect but is also ridiculous.

    What I wanted to do, Solicitor General--and perhaps Ms. McClung could help here--was to ask about your comments partway through your opening statement on substance abuse and the fact that it's a serious problem with our offenders. There are implications here for commission of crimes, for example, and the transmission of infectious diseases in our system. I am wondering what we are doing in this case. What are we doing to correct or prevent it, or to somehow make a difference to the substance abuse problem?

    Perhaps you, Mr. MacAulay, can lead off, and then I'd be interested in what Ms. McClung has to say.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    When I arrived in this position, I looked at the statistics and found that seven out of ten people who entered a federal institution had a problem with drug and/or alcohol, which would indicate to me that this is the area you should address. I can assure you--and I'm sure Commissioner McClung would agree--that I've made a major issue of trying our best.

    It's a major issue to deal with the drug problem within our prison system. But we have evaluated all the programs we have in our federal institutions. We have put an addiction branch of the Correctional Service of Canada in place. As I indicated before, we're having a conference next week, I believe it is, on this issue, trying to get the best minds in the world to determine what should or should not be done.

    I know it's a great concern, one all committee members here would like to deal with. It's a problem within the prison system and within society. What we're trying to do is put the best programs in place. You must have the enforcement in place, but as with any human being, if you can convince them what they're doing to themselves, in fact committing a death sentence mostly on themselves by doing this...that is probably the most important thing we can do in the system.

    I will let Commissioner McClung continue.

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Minister.

    The minister referred to our program, and there are three aspects to address regarding the situation of substance abuse in terms of personal problems and the presence of drugs in our institutions, a situation a lot of people cannot understand—and I can understand why they don't understand it.

    We have control, treatment, and research measures. In terms of controls, we have dogs, ion scanners, a urinalysis program, the Criminal Code—indeed—and liaison officers. We have stepped up measures in each of these control areas. We also have treatment through our programming, which is recognized as state of the art in terms of clinical intervention. We have 4,500 programming spots for offenders who are dealing with this problem, a methadone program, and intensive support units, which have been introduced over the last year.

    Yet we are not satisfied. Much more needs to be done because it is a number one issue in society, as some would say, but certainly among agency heads responsible for correctional systems.

    We are investigating the possibility of implementing smaller regimes and what it would mean to implement them so that all these measures can be integrated and the focus directed towards a special group of offenders. I believe this will yield results, and it will yield results in two ways. First, it will ensure integration among all these measures so the offender is clearly aware of expectations of behaviour and attitudes while in our institutions and while under supervision in the community. Our staff are also aware of the expectations, and there are consequences to breaches of expectations. That will yield results in that area.

    It will also yield results in terms of discussion among staff. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, was implemented in 1992. I believe it is now time—and the union agrees with me as well, especially regarding correctional officers—that it is now time to really sit down and make sure that every staff member understands the tools that are at his or her disposal in order to intervene. That is the essence of corrections: intervention.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, if I have a little more time, I want to talk a bit about port police. We hear from time to time, sometimes more times than we care to, about the fact that since they've been gone there have been problems and concerns. The call always seems to go out to reinstate them.

    I want to get a feel of exactly what's happening when it comes to the policing of our ports and what is going on there, and also to give some level of comfort to Canadians, who are generally interested in this question.

    The Chair: Perhaps you can do that, Mr. Minister.

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

    As my honourable colleague is aware, the responsibility for the policing is one of local jurisdiction, such as with the Halifax police force in Halifax and forces in many other areas like that across the country. But of course the RCMP have major responsibility combatting organized crime, illegal drugs, and this type of thing.

    Perhaps the commissioner could expand on it for a few moments.

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

    The ports are used, obviously, to facilitate serious crime. The key with the ports, from our perspective, is not necessarily to have a permanent presence down there, in terms of uniformed people who happen to walk around and do basic security work. The key with the ports is to have good intelligence that enables you to work in a collaborative way with all your federal, provincial, and local agencies. Then you can target the serious criminal organizations that are outside of the ports on the other side of the world.

    You have to work in collaboration with not only Canada but our key partners around the world, to gather the intelligence, identify who is using the ports, and then go after them. Having a presence in the ports will not necessarily make you more effective in dealing with organized crime.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I would remind members of the committee the difference between seven minutes and three minutes.

    Next is Mr. Cadman.

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

    Solicitor General, on the issue of victim impact statements, a number of months ago a report from an internal CSC audit indicated that less than one-third of court-delivered victim impact statements were actually making it into the inmate files. Of those that were in the files, many were being virtually ignored.

    I asked this question in the House and didn't get much of an answer. Has that issue been resolved? Why were those impact statements not making it into the files in the first place? Is there ongoing monitoring, to make sure that doesn't occur again? Those victim impact statements are a very important part of making an assessment.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I agree with my honourable colleague about victim impact statements. He did bring it up in the House, and it is a very important issue. It's being addressed and we are making sure they are where they should be in the files. I can assure him that is being done.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Why weren't they getting into the files? Perhaps the commissioner can respond.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I understand there were some glitches within the system. I'll let the commissioner respond.

    Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Minister.

    One of the problems we had was the liaison between agencies responsible for getting them. Another problem was lack of attention, on the part of staff, to aggressively go after missing information. We are addressing both of these problems. We are aggressively monitoring compliance, and there will be documents to show progress.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: There was also indication of a problem with pre-sentence reports; that less than half of them were making it into the inmate files for assessment. Was that part of the same problem, and is that also being addressed?

    Ms. Lucie McClung: The service has an obligation to make sure it has at its disposal all of the documents that would supplement and support decision-making. One of our ongoing problems is to make sure we have agreements with various agencies so that happens. We are always, in liaison at the regional deputy commissioner level in our regions, dealing with the provinces to make sure the reports from the courts and mental health offices—all sorts of reports—come to us.

    There is a second dimension to this. It's not sufficient to only have the reports; we would like to receive them in an intelligible way. When we receive 700-page reports and court documents, it does not serve us well in terms of timing for decision-making. There is an additional complexity that we need to address. Let's first make sure we get the information, and then make sure we have the same understanding of what this information means.

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

    John McKay is next for three minutes.

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

    I know Mr. Elcock would really prefer that this entire meeting take place without us asking him any questions, but I feel it's my personal obligation to ask him.

    The minister, in his speech, said the government was creating a list of terrorist entities. He said they're liable to have their assets frozen, potentially seized, forfeited, etc., and there will be stiff penalties for those who knowingly support those entities.

    Could Mr. Elcock tell us the state of the creation of this list? I assume this is something more than merely the United Nations list and is a direct result of the passage of Bill C-36.

    Could he tell us the state of debate on the creation of this list and when he expects to be able to present it to the Solicitor General?

    Further, could he tell us what analysis has been done on whether the creation of the list—adding an entity—may well be counterproductive? I just came from a situation where the placement of a known terrorist entity on a list may well be counterproductive to a peace process. Rather than reducing terrorism by putting this entity on the list, you might increase terrorism.

    Perhaps he could give us a feel for those very serious concerns that many of our constituents have. Thank you.

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

    The process is, of course, that they supply the information to the Solicitor General, who provides to it to cabinet, and then cabinet makes the decision as to who is put on the list and who is not.

    If the director of CSIS wishes to expand on that...that's how the process works. But I don't believe the commissioner would be able to indicate...he can indicate what he likes, I guess, but the fact is, what he does is get the information and then the government has to decide.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Mr. Chairman, to respond to the question in terms of timing, the process is moving ahead. The consequences of being listed under the provisions of Bill C-36—I forget the title of the act—are obviously considerably more than being listed under the UN regulations. As a consequence of that, the preparation of documents to support listing under that act has taken some time and will take some more time before all of them are finished, although they will happen, I think, seriatim over a period of time.

    It is an onerous process. It involves the preparation of a considerable document not unlike the document that exists in 40.1 cases under the Immigration Act and the compiling of a lot of information to support that affidavit, that certificate, going forward.

    In terms of the actual listing, it wouldn't be for me to comment. Ultimately it is for ministers to decide who is listed and who is not. We simply provide the information to ministers.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, you have three minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My question is for the Commissioner. You claim to be satisfied with the federal funding your received. Perhaps you have no choice in the matter either. I can understand that. However, surely you can appreciate why I am concerned about a community that has been left to wage its own battle against organized crime and the problem of marijuana growing. Once harvested, the marijuana is shipped south and finds its way onto the market in the Lanaudière region. I'm sure you can also appreciate my dissatisfaction with being told that money and staff are in short supply and that this is the reason why the RCMP does not extend its operations to Manouane in the northern region of my riding.

    I'm happy that you're happy with funding levels, but I'm not. You should be taking a very close look at this situation. I don't know if this is a problem common to all reserves, but in Manouane, it's a major problem and some day soon, the situation will become explosive.

    Having said that, it's interesting to note that everyone appears to be on the same wavelength and to get along. That's nice to see.

    Recently, the Canadian Police Association lobbied us for one day and talked to us about the famous Club Feds, these facilities for offenders which resemble the Club Meds. While I don't always agree with the Association's stand on tougher laws or the treatment of offenders, when it comes to Club Feds, I agree with them 100 per cent.

    As far as I know, the federal government and the Commissioner's office have been silent on the subject. Your members are the ones lobbying hard for the elimination of Club Feds. Are the Commissioner, Correctional Services and the Solicitor General still on good terms? Do you plan to intervene so that at some point, a rational approach is taken to dealing with offenders? I think taxpayers are fet up with footing the bill for Club Feds and for the other things they see on television.

[English]

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On the first part of my honourable colleague's question, I think every country in the world wants more money for practically everything, including policing. But the fact is, this government put $10 billion in just over two years into the public safety envelope, and we have a very respected and efficient police force.

    On the Club Fed, there's no Club Fed in this country. If you were to go to a medium- or maximum-security institution in this country and spend a little time there, I think you'd find out just what it's like. Just being incarcerated is horrible.

    In what you do with a penal institution...the object is public safety, and what we want to do is return people to society who can function in society. We have in this country the Correctional Service of Canada, which most countries in the world come to evaluate, and I know my honourable colleagues over here agree that we have probably one of the best systems in the world. But we are continually evaluating and upgrading the system, as we've indicated here in the drug situation. But to indicate that it's a beautiful place in which to be incarcerated....

    If you have a very small bathroom, just spend a week in there and you'll have an idea. That's a nice place compared to prison. You lose your right to freedom. But what we have to do in the system is make sure these individuals--most of them; some not--can return to society.

  (1210)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'd like to hear the Commissioner's views on the subject.

[English]

    The Chair: Next is Mr. Grose for three minutes.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I appreciate the minister's comparison to a small bathroom.

    Mr. Sorenson asked a question and I wasn't entirely satisfied with the answer. I don't think he was either. Being a simple fellow, I'll reduce it to its simplest terms, and it requires a yes or no answer. Is it possible for someone working for CORCAN to make $700 a week?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner respond. I did respond in the House that what did happen was inappropriate. The commissioner is fully aware of that, too. But I'll let her respond.

    Ms. Lucie McClung: No, it is not possible today, sir.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

    If I have time, I have another question. Our maximum- and medium-security prisons have high walls around them and very narrow entrances. How is it that we have a drug problem inside those institutions?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I've visited some worldwide, and most prisons in the world have difficulty with drugs. The problem is that when you have human beings in an area who want something, it's extremely difficult to make sure they cannot get it at all.

    As the commissioner has indicated, we put a lot of provisions in place. I truly agree with my honourable colleague that it's a great concern. If anybody has any better ideas as to how we can keep them out.... We have the ion scanners and the dogs. If there are any other ways this could be done, we want to do that. There's also the education side where we indicate to the prisoners what it does to them.

    But I'll let the commissioner respond for a moment.

    Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Chair, there are as many ways as a human being can create, ranging from using babies to bring drugs into institutions, to people on the outside shooting loaded tennis balls into the yards, to hiding it under a stamp. That is what we are faced with.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)): Next is Peter MacKay for three minutes.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I know Mr. Glen would not want to be left out of the discussion as well.

    There's a recent book that's been published by a Michael Harris called Con Game, and it's a rather scathing indictment of Canada's prison system. In the course of his work he interviewed hundreds of prisoners, prison guards, and corrections officials, and he visited several of Canada's 69 federal institutions. He concluded that our prisons are “one of the most dangerous and poorly managed workplaces in the country”.

    I'm not laying the blame particularly at your feet, Ms. McClung, your having just taken over the position within the past year. However, when we look at the numbers and we hear the Solicitor General continually telling us how much has been put in the public envelope over the past number of years, we see that the Correctional Service budget jumped from $1.1 billion to $1.14 billion between 1996 and 2000, this even though nearly 2,000 fewer prisoners were incarcerated during the same time.

    The trend appears to be very much away from incarceration. That may or may not be a good thing, but since 1999, when this government instituted a system of accelerated parole review, there have been a number of cases involving murders and attacks by individuals on parole, which has been very alarming for Canadians.

    In 1999 a National Parole Board review revealed that 37 convicted killers paroled over a 24-year period went on to murder another 58 people. In particular, there have been cases that have resulted in what I consider to be very insufficient review by both CSC and the parole board. One that comes to mind very quickly is a case in British Columbia involving a victim by the name of Jeffery Hearn, who was beaten with the claw end of a hammer 30 times in the head by an offender named Brian Riches, who was on statutory release at the time. Statutory release, as we all know, means you're automatically released.

    In this instance Mr. Riches was released even though it has been shown—it was revealed in a parole board report—that during the period he was on statutory release after June 1998 he failed to produce a CSC identification card when asked by police, gave a false name, tested positive for drugs while he was in the community, misused his student loan, failed to tell the parole officer that he had dropped out of school, acquired welfare using false information, absconded and remained unlawfully at large for significant periods of time he was to be under supervision, and failed to keep appointments with his parole officers while on parole. He then went on to commit an extremely violent offence, beating Mr. Hearn within an inch of his life, from which Mr. Hearn is still suffering the effects.

    I'm wondering if you feel that the current system, the current trend towards not incarcerating people, is the direction we should be going?

  (1215)  

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

    Mr. Glen.

    Mr. Ian Glen (Chair, National Parole Board): From the board's perspective, we deal with the legislation that's put before us and assess public risk against the profile of the offender and the information we have. I don't think it's a question of seeing a trend or wanting a trend, but one of dealing with cases one at a time.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Macklin, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With respect to the increased budgetary allotments after September 11, looking at the main estimates we have before us, I would like to get a sense of how much of the budgetary allotments, both for CSIS and the RCMP, have increased and how they are being allocated in terms of resources. Are we putting more money into personnel? Are we putting more into equipment? If so, what type of equipment are we acquiring? What is the technology level we're going to if that is where we're going?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    CSIS, if I remember correctly, had a roughly 34% increase in their budget. Since September 11 there has of course been a bigger requirement for security intelligence, and I would let the director of CSIS expand on that. As to the percentage for the RCMP, the commissioner should answer that question because there have been a lot of millions and he can give a specific answer.

    Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, to respond to the question, I will repeat what the minister said, that our budget went up about 34% as a result of the December budget. The division of the money is not an exact science at this juncture. Over the five years, however, it will probably mean an increase of about 300 people in CSIS, some of whom will be intelligence officers and some of whom will have other areas of expertise.

    There will in addition be money for technological developments, all the way from faster computers, a continuing treadmill in the intelligence business, to highly specialized pieces of equipment we need for our work. We'll have to make a number of major acquisitions, and as well there will be some construction in terms of increases in the buildings we occupy.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the percentages, but we're talking substantial increases. I said before that in the last five years it was about 34% or 35%, so we're talking about a lot of money. And in terms of where it's being used, it's being used in a multitude of areas. Obviously, in today's world, without good intelligence, good analytical capability, you can't go very far. So we invested a lot in our technology that enables us to do better analysis and so on, get better intelligence.

    We've created the IBETs, integrated border enforcement teams. There are 16 of them that are going to be strategically located throughout the country, working in a seamless way with their counterparts in the United States. Those are multi-disciplinary teams, all various federal agencies, CSIS, other federal agencies, other law enforcement agencies and so on.

    The sky marshal program is another area. We've increased the basic technology that enables the police officers to get more access more quickly, and better information instantly so they can respond and so on.

    So it's been done on multi-levels. It hasn't just been infused into personnel. It's been a balance.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Randy White, three minutes.

    Mr. Randy White (Langley--Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, contrary to the Solicitor General's comments that we have the best system in the world in corrections, I differ from that view, of course. Within the next four weeks I'll be disclosing publicly exactly why there is a need for a public inquiry into corrections.

    One of the comments made across the way was about drugs in prison. One of the reasons why there are drugs in prison is there's money in prison. And one of the reasons why there's money is prison is a fundraising scheme by inmates. That fundraising scheme takes form by way of reimbursement for claims, out-of-court settlements and in-court settlements. I've done extensive research into these various fundraising schemes. In fact, I just received information on reimbursement for claims where in fact in a very recent period there have been as many as 16 claims for televisions stolen in prisons. One prison claims four televisions stolen by inmates. These televisions were all paid for by Corrections Canada, and in fact replaced.

    Now, why you can't go through a prison and ask if that is your television there, I don't know. Or if somebody's walking out of the prison with a television, maybe you should ask a question.

    I would like to know where in the estimates the line item is or how much we are paying for reimbursement for claims, out-of-court settlements and in-court settlements by inmates.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: If the commissioner has that specific information, she will certainly give it to you. And if she doesn't--

    Mr. Randy White: We're here to talk about the estimates.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're right. And if we don't have that specific information on the number of televisions or whatever, it is possible that she would have to get back to you with the accurate information.

    Mr. Randy White: Well, I can tell you that. I'm looking for the overall amount for reimbursement for claims of out-of-court settlements and for claims by inmates for everything from televisions to knives, carving knives, you name it--in-court settlements.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, I don't want to not provide information to my honourable colleague, but I can assure you that the Commissioner of Corrections will supply you with the information as soon as she has it. We'll be sure that you receive it.

    The Chair: Do I take it the minister—

    Mr. Randy White: Well, I'd like to ask another question.

    The Chair: Oh, yes, you have time.

    Mr. Randy White: I'd like to know where the heck that sex offender registry legislation is. It was last May, if you recall, in 2001, Solicitor General, that the House unanimously, all parties at this table, agreed that we needed a sex offender registry. It did not come. And to implement a sex offender registry, you need legislation. Now I understand the Solicitor General is on record to the provinces saying he will have legislation in place by November this year--a year late, but that's the commitment. I also have correspondence from provinces suggesting that they just plain don't believe it. So I'd like to know the one answer: will there be legislation to implement a sex offender registry tabled in the House of Commons prior to November 2002?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I certainly appreciate my honourable colleague's help with the provinces and territories. It's certainly beneficial when we're trying to work with the provinces and territories to make sure that we have legislation in place.

    What you've heard from the provinces is not what I've heard at the federal, provincial, and territorial meetings. What they want is what we have proposed: this registry. It will be put in place.

    Whatever my honourable colleague might think, what must happen is the provinces, the territories, and the federal government will come up with a package. When they come up with that package, legislation will be taken to the House of Commons.

    It's only fair and proper that the provinces and territories have input into this legislation, as they've had an input into every part of this sex offender registry category on CPIC. It's where it should be, and it's where it will be.

  (1225)  

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

    Now to John Maloney for three minutes.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie--Lincoln, Lib.): Some areas could need additional policing responsibilities, such as police services in border communities and in regions where there's a strategic security infrastructure. These areas could require additional manpower, training, and equipment, which they don't have at this time, or they're in the process of getting.

    Is there any plan to provide financial assistance to these areas to assist them with training, equipment purchases, and additional resources? They may have the resources now, but there's been diversion from other policing responsibilities and obligations they had previous to our anti-terrorism bill and the events of September 11.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    In fact, you're absolutely right. There will be financial assistance. The IBETs and the NSETs are in place.

    I will let the Commissioner of the RCMP expand on these two very important initiatives put in place by the government in cooperation with our police forces, not only in this country but also in the United States.

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Chairman, what we've done with the resources the RCMP has received is to create, based on our intelligence, teams that are strategically located throughout the country. These teams are multi-disciplinary, meaning that they have members from other agencies and police departments. Through the funds that we've received, we pay for certain overtime and equipment for the agencies that participate. Our greater presence there will help those regions. Plus we have flexibility with our resources to pay for certain equipment, resources, and training that we are doing with them. This is very much a part of the package.

    The reality is that September 11 is not just a federal responsibility; it is something that every community and area now has to factor into their priorities and daily lives. So there is a need for the provinces and municipalities to be involved and to make a contribution.

    So it's a multi-level approach. We've maximized the federal resources in terms of helping these communities and these police forces as much as we can.

    Mr. John Maloney: How does a local community or region apply for or access these resources?

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: They don't actually apply to us. We set up a team where they're involved with us, where we work with them in setting up an operation, doing an investigation, or working on teams. They work with us and then we pay for their overtime, some of their vehicles, and other resources. So while they don't actually apply to us, they do have to participate. The key is to participate. Then they can benefit from the federal resources that are provided through us.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I want to be very clear about my earlier question. I'm in favour of rehabilitation and of having inmates attend training courses and getting the treatment they need to help them with the reintegration process upon their release.

    However, judging from your answers, the federal government doesn't have the money to conduct investigations or the staff to send RCMP officers to my riding to fight organized crime and deal with marijuana growers. At the same time, this very same federal government manages to find the money to allow certain inmates to play golf, to go salmon fishing, to enjoy well-equipped gymnasiums and to go on whale watching expeditions. Something is wrong with the system, in my opinion.

    Judging from his responses, the Solicitor General appears to be denying the existence of these Club Feds. Can the RCMP Commissioner tell me if he has a problem with the existence of these facilities which have all of the amenities I listed, along with many others that I have not mentioned?

  (1230)  

[English]

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm sure my honourable colleague would never want to indicate that the SQ and the RCMP don't work cooperatively and work well together. He's obviously fully aware of what took place over the last couple of years, with the cooperation of the RCMP and the SQ.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Ce n'est pas ça la question.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It has meant better public safety for all Canadians right across this country.

    The commissioner of corrections would possibly want to expand on some of the allegations that were made on Club Fed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My question was very clearly directed to the Commissioner of the RCMP who is responsible for the federal police force. All of my questions had to do with the RCMP. I can appreciate that Madam is very competent and that surely she can supply me with some answers, but I'd like to hear from the person in charge. That's why they are here, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Actually, all questions are put to the Solicitor General and it's up to the Solicitor General to either answer them or direct them to the people who are with him here today. So the question was put to the Solicitor General, and he will respond in the way he sees fit.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I certainly have no problem if my honourable colleague wishes to have a comment from the Commissioner of the RCMP. I'm very pleased to let him comment.

[Translation]

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, as RCMP Commissioner, I am not responsible for prisons and therefore I'm not going to comment on correctional facilities. However, I am prepared to say something about organized crime and marijuana growing operations.

    Of course I'm concerned about what I see happening in Canada and about these marijuana growing operations. I'm fully aware of the problem you're experiencing in your riding and I can assure you that the problem won't be solved merely be ensuring a police presence in your riding. As I said earlier, the solution lies in gathering the necessary intelligence and using the information to bring down these organizations. As you well know, the marijuana growers in your riding have ties to organizations in Montreal and abroad. We need to target the leaders of these organizations...[Editor's note: inaudible]...the organization isn't based in your riding. However, I do understand your question. Our priority is to focus on criminal organizations that pose the greatest threat in our country. That's what we've been doing.

    Earlier, I stated that we were satisfied with funding levels. How can I not be pleased with a 35 per cent increase in funding. However, as the Minister noted, if ever additional funding became available, I would indeed welcome an increase in our budget. That's what I meant. It's a matter of priorities. We can't do everything and that's why we are focussing our efforts on the organizations that pose the greatest domestic threat.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner.

    John McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: I'd like to go back to the Kelowna camera. I looked back in my notes from when the privacy commissioner came, and he described the Kelowna camera as being in a place of general surveillance. This was a public street and it was like a police officer following you around while you went about your ordinary business.

    His argument was that privacy is not an absolute right but is subject to four tests. It has to be demonstrably necessary; it has to be demonstrably effective; it has to be proportionate to harms to be addressed; and there must be no other alternative.

    I'd suggest to you, Commissioner, that your ex post facto testing doesn't meet the privacy issue. You've actually intruded into Canadians' privacy rights, and then after a period of time you're going to evaluate it and make a recommendation as to whether to continue or not to continue. But in fact you have it backwards. You should have dealt with the privacy commissioner's concern as an officer of Parliament, but his comment about your response to his written and verbal entreaties was that it was basically an RCMP shrug and a bit of a blow-off.

    Commissioner, I think the privacy commissioner is right. Not only is there a real danger of the intrusion of privacy, but in fact there is function creep here. This is a means by which we do cheap policing these days--set up a camera and intrude into people's privacy rights. I'd like you to respond to the privacy commissioner's concerns.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: John, at the outset I'd just like to say that the privacy commissioner has advised the RCMP that they are in compliance with the Privacy Act. It's been talked about before, and I'll let the commissioner expand on it.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Chair, I want to correct what I believe is an erroneous position here. It is not an RCMP camera. It was not the RCMP who put up the camera. The City of Kelowna bought the camera and is operating the camera. We only get involved when we have intelligence to lead us to believe there may be criminal activity or a criminal offence taking place. It is not the RCMP's camera.

    Mr. John McKay: You provide policing services for the area.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: We do provide policing services under contract to the City of Kamloops. You're right.

    Mr. John McKay: With the greatest respect, that's a bit of a disingenuous argument. It's ultimately your responsibility.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: With all due respect, it is not our camera. I can't tell the City of Kamloops not to buy a camera or install a camera. If they wish to buy a camera, it's their right. We access the camera. We have done a lot of work on this.

    We have not given the commissioner a blow-off on anything. I have met personally with the commissioner. I've had lunch with the commissioner. We've had extensive correspondence. I have valuable resources doing research on this.

    You only have to look around the world to see the proliferation of cameras. It is a reality in today's world.

    We have said, on the one camera we access from time to time, we will stop, examine it, and do a review. I think it is the responsible thing to do.

    Again, the commissioner himself has said he is complying with the law. The courts in this country have been very clear on what privacy means. I don't accept your categorization of what has taken place here.

    The Chair: Peter MacKay, you have three minutes.

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

    I wanted to allow Ms. McClung an opportunity to respond to the issue of the Riches case, which I'm hoping will become the subject of another committee. You would be aware of this case. I brought it up in committee the last time you were here.

    I'm quoting your words. You stated, with respect to the policy of reviewing these types of cases, “there have been instances in the past where national investigations would have been warranted, but the decision was taken not to do so”. You went on to say, “investigations driven by national headquarters are more comprehensive reviews”.

    In the Riches case, you would know the result of the investigation was merely a file review that resulted in a two-page document. It was a document, I'm quick to add, that the victim, Mr. Hearn, was not made aware of nor given access to.

    Of a more disturbing nature is the fact a similar case that occurred in the same area around the same time, albeit more serious in the sense that the victim died, resulted in a 40-page report, of which I have a copy. Although the victim didn't die, he was beaten within an inch of his life.

    Why wasn't there a national investigation? Why wouldn't this case have warranted it?

    I feel this case is indicative of some of the problems in the discretionary decisions that are being made in response to violence by offenders on parole and violence within the system generally, within prisons.

    I have a couple of other questions. With respect to the International Corrections and Prisons Association, which was the previous commissioner's brainchild, this particular commission, as I understand it, receives contributions from CSC, your department, annually.

    Where are the offices? What contact is there between CSC for value assessment of the money? Why is it not subject to the Access to Information Act?

    Similarly, we've heard a lot on the news about jets and the $100 million purchase of jets. CSC also has a jet, as you're aware. The last time you were here, we asked about the jet. There was supposed to be an undertaking, I believe, to evaluate the use of the jet to find out if it was remaining or if it was ever cost effective. There was going to be a report, as I understand it, to the Auditor General. Did it occur? Is information being shared about the logs of the jet? What is it being used for? If so, could the logs and information on its cost effectiveness be provided to this committee?

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let Ms. McClung answer.

    I know my honourable colleague is fully aware--I expect he is--that it's not a jet; it's a plane. It has proven its efficiency.

    I'll let the commissioner respond.

    Ms. Lucie McClung: I'll start in the order of your observations.

    First of all, on the question of investigations, as I indicated last February, I guess it was, we're not satisfied that the quality of the reports and the information that should be in our review is consistent according to the level of authority that directs these investigations. Therefore, I have sitting on my desk a draft report that will enable us for all significant incidents, whether during the period of incarceration or during the period of parole, to duly and completely and thoroughly review them. I'd like to share this initial draft with my colleague from the National Parole Board and with key stakeholders, because it has implications in terms of implementation. I will keep you informed if you wish.

    In the case of investigations that were not as completely done as should be, and given the accountability of the service, we will have the information that is warranted in all reviews of incidents.

    On the ICPA, International Corrections and Parole Association, I will respect the commitment that was made to this outside organization. It's not a government organization; it is an outside organization. The Correctional Service of Canada provides contributions in the order of $180,000 to advance research and sharing of knowledge across jurisdictions. The offices, therefore, are not within my purview. There is a board of directors and a complete management of this association that is outside of my management and the management of government. It has nothing to do.... I don't even know what it is--a not-for-profit organization, I guess; I'm not sure. It's not my concern in particular.

    The CSC jet, as the minister has informed you, is not a jet; it is a twin-engine Pilatus. I will not go into more details because I'm not technically inclined. The purchase of the Pilatus to be part of the RCMP fleet was to provide a few things. One is greater access to the total fleet on a priority basis at a lower rate per mile. So it is not a CSC plane. What we have bought, essentially, through the MOU is greater access for corrections business to the RCMP fleet.

    There is a report that was made by an outside agency that basically tells us that for offender transfers it has shown a financial benefit in the order of $150,000. The report points out—and this is an aspect I am particularly interested in—that for the transfer of offenders, rather than to go through hubs, airports such as Dorval or Vancouver, because offenders are now mostly higher-security types of offenders, we are avoiding contact with citizens and the volatility and the potential for security breaches.

    There is more to be done in terms of better monitoring, because where we are not doing as well as was initially intended is the use by CSC staff. One of the problems is the question of insurance. So we need to talk more precisely with Treasury Board and to figure out what essentially the RCMP has figured out. Therefore, I have decided, especially given the advantages—and I can go on, but I won't because I have to finish—to step up the use for offenders, step up the use for CSC staff that must be in institutions, including me, and have a further review by September 2003.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Grose, for three minutes.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, through you, I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Glen. Incidentally, a Pilatus I think only has one engine.

    We realize that the parole board is going to make mistakes. It's made up of human beings. Heaven knows, if they were perfect they should run for Parliament. But could you give us an idea of your failure rate or success rate over the last five or ten years, or some considerable period? I could ask you 45 years, but that might be thought to be self-serving. If you don't have the figures with you here today, if you could supply us with the figures, I would appreciate it. One or two years is not productive.

  (1245)  

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Go ahead, Mr. Glen.

    Mr. Ian Glen: I think it is easiest to provide all members with a copy of our last performance report that we tabled with the House. It will show the trends over a number of years.

    The success rates--and I guess we attribute success to the offenders back out in the community, as to whether they violate the terms of their conditions and are having their former release, whatever it is, revoked, or they're back for further offences, or they succeed. Generally the pattern over the years has shown that the conditional release system in Canada does work in the various measures: day parole success rates; parole success rates; and then statutory release rates. They vary depending on the form of release and the nature of the decisions.

    But for the purpose of time today, it's in the performance report. So if I could just undertake to ensure that we provide copies, the information will be shown there.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Grose, if we have a book on corrections and conditional release, a statistical review, we can have it sent to you, if you wish, to give you an overview of the situation.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: That will be my reading for tonight.

    The Chair: We'll all be looking for something to read tonight, so I would extend the offer to all members of the committee... if you would, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I have three quick questions.

    First of all, we've tried to get to the bottom of this CORCAN thing over the last three weeks. Today we found out that CORCAN can pay $13.80 or $13.90 per day, yet we know that inmates, some of whom have 10 years before parole eligibility, have been receiving $700 a week.

    We've also found out today that the problem with drugs in prison is huge and the reason there are drugs is because there is money in prison. But we have a Correctional Service affiliate or arm of the Correctional Service, CORCAN, paying incentive pay back to inmates, in some cases 10 years before parole eligibility. Is the use of inmates so early in their sentence not in conflict with CORCAN's mandate as a training agency to help convicts prior to release?

    My second question is again to the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, through the Solicitor General.

    There are upgrades currently going on in Drumheller, some improvements to the penitentiary. You've been to Drumheller. It's in my riding. Some of the reports we have had out of there are that inmates are used in the labour of preparing it specifically for the G-8 conference in Kananaskis, getting it ready in case there is an event where it has to be used. The problem stated by the report is that inmates are being used even in the security nature of upgrades. Can the commissioner explain exactly what is being done at Drumheller and why? How much is it going to cost? And as to the inmates being involved with the upgrades, are they involved with security risks?

    We've had in Drumheller, over the last year and half--and I know you're very aware of this--a number of uprisings. We have had a murder, and three weeks ago we had a double murderer--someone who has committed two murders--walking away from that institution.

    Are we using inmates in upgrading the institution in security areas?

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

    The commissioner will respond too, but as I said earlier, the pay that is given is comparable. The large pay is unacceptable, and it has been addressed. What CORCAN is doing is generally what other countries around the world are doing.

    Of course, they don't receive all the money just to go and buy what they like. That's not how it works.

    But I'll let the commissioner respond.

    Ms. Lucie McClung: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Chair, with respect to CORCAN, it has 5,000 program spots for offenders in our institutions, and I have just secured, through its efforts, through a renewed effort in the community, 1,000 jobs for offenders on a release, which is not a small feat. Nevertheless one of the reasons we wanted to make sure there was a cap on salaries was to enhance the number of offenders accessing CORCAN.

    Should CORCAN be available to all offenders? Absolutely. Structured use of time is the foundation of security in our institutions. So that will deal with CORCAN.

    In terms of the Drumheller institution, yes, we will use inmate labour, inmate jobs, to do as much as possible inside our institutions. Does an offender come close to activities or to policies that have security implications? Absolutely not. They should not be doing that, and I will make sure that is the case in the Drumheller institution.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Next is Mr. Macklin for three minutes.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

    I have two questions. One is directed specifically to the estimates, and that relates to a summary we were provided with today. I'm referring to pages 21-2 and 21-14. It refers to three issues: pensions of the RCMP, compensating members for injuries received in the performance of duty, and pensions for families of members of the RCMP who have lost their lives while on duty. I notice that in last year's main estimates $39 million-plus was allocated. When we go to the summary, it shows that nothing was dealt with in the summary itself. I wonder what happened to that $39 million that was shown as a line item at the back.

    Secondly, with regard to the recruitment of new personnel for both the RCMP and CSIS, what percentage of the recruitment that's going on these days results from expansion within the forces? What percentage is the result of retirement and those who are in fact leaving the service? Can you give us some concept? Do you see a problem developing there where you're going to have to have a major recruitment drive to keep up with those who may potentially be available for retirement or who are leaving the service?

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would be surprised if the commissioner had the details with him on the pension item. He might have to supply that later to the committee. But I'm sure he could respond to the second question.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, I don't know why $39 million has gone to zero dollars, but I will undertake to get you that information.

    In terms of recruitment, all police forces are facing the situation where there was a lot of expansion in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and these members are now reaching retirement age. This is a real issue for us. So we've put into place steps to enhance our recruitment, and Depot, our training academy in Regina, is fully set up to deal with that. We've increased our recruitment there.

    Also, as a result of the new resources we have received through the various initiatives, such as the Price Waterhouse review and especially the counterterrorism issue, we are hiring people. So we're working on two prongs here, making sure we have a sufficient number of people to replace those who are leaving. For every position that's available and for every member who's retiring, there are many Canadians out there who want to join the force.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We have very little time left, and I'd like to give Mr. Bellehumeur and Mr. MacKay the opportunity to ask a question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Solicitor General, on two or three occasions, you've stated that the Canadian and US systems are comparable. I hope your goal is not to turn the Canadian system into more or less a clone of the US system, particularly in terms of the correctional facilities and the treatment of offenders, because there are no lessons whatsoever to be drawn from the Americans. I want a system that more closely mirrors our own values. However, that wasn't my question.

    You mentioned service contracts. I can appreciate that this is a highly complex issue and that there's probably not enough time for a complete answer. I have two questions for you concerning service contracts like the ones you have with the City of Kelowna and other municipalities, and even with some Canadian provinces. First of all, how lucrative are these service contracts? Is this money included in the RCMP operating budget now before the committee? If not, where is the money accounted for?

  (1255)  

[English]

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm certainly not comparing. I've indicated clearly that our systems are quite different. We incarcerate about one-sixth of the amount in the U.S., but we're higher than a lot of countries around the world. We have a lot of very efficient programs within our correctional services system in order to rehabilitate people. But there are some comparisons, and I just referred to some of them.

    Perhaps the commissioner could respond to the contracting issue.

[Translation]

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: As you know, pursuant to the provisions of federal government contracts with the provinces, the federal government covers 30% of the costs and the province, 70%. The RCMP receives approximately $1 billion each year pursuant to its contracts with various provinces and municipalities. In some cases, the municipality pays 90% of the costs. Kamloops was mentioned earlier. This municipality picks up 90% of the tab, with the federal government paying the remaining 10%. This money goes into the federal government's coffers.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Should we add this $1 billion to the total?

    Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: No, it's already been included.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In these budget figures?

    Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's impossible.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: We have a budget of approximately $2.5 billion.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So, service contracts are not included in the budget before the committee.

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: I don't have that document...

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The figure I have is $1,128,786. Therefore, service contracts are not included in this budget. How is this revenue accounted for?

    Commr Guiliano Zaccardelli: That's revenue we receive from provinces and municipalities. It totals approximately $1 billion.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Generally speaking, what is the RCMP's operating budget in that case?

    Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: In the order of $2.5 billion. That's what I've been saying.

[English]

    The Chair: And finally, we'll go to Mr. MacKay.

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

    I just wanted to return to Ms. McClung. On the subject of the jet, you were right to point out that it was a turboprop. I remember now that there was a lot of controversy about that because that plane is not well suited to serve the north. It doesn't fly the same distances you would get from other planes.

    My question, which I don't believe you answered, was about whether in fact this review that was done internally for your own use was turned over to the Auditor General.

    Commr Lucie McClung: Mr. Chair, if there was an understanding that it was to be turned over, I count on the service to respond to its commitment. I cannot honestly say whether or not it was, so I'll check it out.

    I did not answer your question as to whether or not it will be available to this committee. Of course it will be.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Regarding the case involving Mr. Riches as well, I wanted to give you an opportunity... I know this is a Liberal-dominated committee, but I would like to see this issue delved into further because it's indicative of some of the other problems that exist in reporting and review.

    Would you be willing to come before the committee and discuss that case and some of the circumstances surrounding what happened with Mr. Riches? Why wasn't there a national investigation? Why wasn't one warranted in that case, given some of the shortfalls in supervision, the extremely aggravating circumstances, and the failure to keep the victim involved?

    With respect to the victim, my last question relates to the fact that in the Auditor General's report there is mention of CSC setting up a victims unit in April of 2001. There was a press release that talked about this unit, yet I understand that this is really a victims unit in name only. I wanted to know if you could give us some information about it, including details about the staff and a comparison of budgets.

    The correctional investigator's office has a budget of over $1 million. Is there a similar budget for this victims unit? If you could, please provide us with any information about the mandate of CSC's victims unit.

    Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

    On the committee work, I can assure you that officials with the Solicitor General's office are pleased to come before the committee when the committee requests that they come before the committee. We're pleased to provide any information the committee wishes us to supply.

    I'll let Ms. McClung deal with a number of the specific questions from my honourable colleague from Nova Scotia.

·  (1300)  

    Commr Lucie McClung: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Chair, on the specific situation Mr. MacKay raised, there will be, as I mentioned before but will be more precise on, a full review. I expect to have all the facts. It's necessary that we have all the facts before we take the necessary measures to prevent...

    In terms of the CSC victims unit, under the citizen engagement sector I created there is particular emphasis on making sure we fulfil our responsibilities as directed in the CCRA, our legislation, to share information, to assist to the extent we can, and to engage in a dialogue with victims themselves, individuals or associations, to see what more we can do—within our mandate, of course.

    In terms of the dollars, I believe there are four people, but I would like to confirm this and come back with the dollar amount of the unit.

    The Chair: Thank you to all the witnesses. Thank you, committee.

    I just want to make one point before we adjourn. That is, there have been a number of references to information that would be made available. From time to time during the course of the dialogue with committee members, there were promises made to the effect of “I will get that particular committee member that particular piece of information”. Please be advised that the transcript will show these kinds of exchanges, and that will all come to the clerk and be made available to all members of the committee.

    Mr. Myers, you have a point of order, I assume.

    Mr. Lynn Myers: On a point of order, I wondered if Mr. MacKay was bringing forth his motion now. I thought he had put a notice.

    The Chair: Well, it's 1:05 p.m. now. We wouldn't be able to entertain any kind of debate or anything.

    The meeting is adjourned.