JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 9, 2003

Á

1110

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

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada)

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

Hon. Wayne Easter

Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky (Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Hon. Wayne Easter

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Á

1130

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Á

1135

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Á

1140

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. William Baker (Commissioner of Firearms, Canada Firearms Centre)

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. William Baker

The Chair

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

Hon. Wayne Easter

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Á

1145

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Wayne Easter

Á

1150

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Hon. Wayne Easter

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

Hon. Wayne Easter

Â

1200

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. William Baker

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.))

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Â

1210

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

Â

1215

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Hon. Wayne Easter

Â

1220

Mr. William Baker

The Chair

Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic)

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Â

1230

Hon. Wayne Easter

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

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

Â

1235

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Hon. Wayne Easter

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Â

1240

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

Â

1245

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. William Baker

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Hon. Wayne Easter

The Chair

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

Â

1250

Hon. Wayne Easter

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Â

1255

The Chair

Hon. Wayne Easter

D/Commr Garry Loeppky

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. William Baker

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 070

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 70th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates (A), 2003-2004. We're looking at votes 1a, 7a, 8a, 35a, and 40a under the Solicitor General. This was referred to the committee on Tuesday, September 23, 2003.

    We have with us the Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Easter, and other witnesses, who I'm sure he will identify. Welcome to the committee, and we look forward to your presentation. Do you have any idea, Mr. Minister, how much time?

    Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada): We had figured on staying until 1, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: I was actually asking about your opening remarks.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: Oh. Well, that'll be about an hour and a half.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Wayne Easter: It will not be too long. We want to give an overview, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Please proceed.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, everyone.

    With me this morning is Deputy Solicitor General, Nicole Jauvin; the RCMP deputy commissioner, operations, Garry Loeppky; and Commissioner Bill Baker, head of the Canada Firearms Centre.

    It is indeed a pleasure for me to come before you this morning to discuss the supplementary estimates for the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

    Mr. Chairman, as committee members will know, the Government of Canada has put a high priority on public safety. The portfolio of the Solicitor General continues to lead this country's efforts to ensure that Canadians are as safe as possible.

    The overall crime rate in Canada has been steadily decreasing, and it now stands at under 8.4 incidents per 100,000 population, which is a 20-year low. We have one of the lowest rates of reoffending in the world. While this is neither a cause for self-congratulation nor complacency, I think we can safely say that we are doing something right, in working together within the portfolio, within government, with the provinces, with communities across the country, and with the international community to help keep Canadians safe.

    However, the challenges involved in the portfolio's mandate are still significant and require the concerted efforts of the portfolio agencies and the department. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, as you know, leads on national security matters to guard against terrorist threats. The passage of the 2001 Anti-terrorism Act provided another tool to allow us to identify and disrupt terrorist organizations. We've listed 31 such organizations under the Criminal Code so far, and the assessment process for other possible listings continues.

    Our national police agency, the RCMP, leads on law enforcement and plays an important role in the prevention of crime through, for example, its community policing efforts and its drug abuse prevention programs aimed at youth. In the past year the RCMP has launched significant initiatives that contribute to both enforcement and prevention, including most recently a national coordination centre to combat child sexual exploitation via the Internet and RECOL, a website to report economic crime online.

    Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board are also focused on the goal of helping to prevent crime, in their case through programs to rehabilitate offenders and ensure their safe and graduated release into the community, respectively.

    Finally, the Canada Firearms Centre focuses on delivering a national firearms program that contributes to public safety and crime prevention by keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them and preventing illegal guns from entering the country, while at the same time respecting the legitimate rights and interests of hunters, sport shooters, and others.

    The portfolio has one unified mandate, that of public safety, but with many ways of getting there.

    We've made great progress in our efforts over the past year, and to sustain this progress we need adequate resources. It's my pleasure today to give you a brief overview of our accomplishments in some key areas and to outline the progress we expect to make with the resources we've requested through supplementary estimates.

    One area where we have requested additional resources is in policing. Police investigations are becoming more complex, and this has had a significant impact on the RCMP. Supplementary funding will allow the RCMP to meet its commitment to the Canadian public and its employees and to address ongoing priorities.

    It will also inject needed funds into key initiatives such as the integrated proceeds of crime initiative, or IPOC. IPOC is a strong example of the federal government working with its partners across Canada and internationally to maintain safe streets and communities. The initiative, which has been operating since 1997, targets the seizure of profits, the primary motivation for organized criminals. It involves the RCMP, Justice Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the Department of the Solicitor General, as well as law enforcement partners from other jurisdictions and internationally. IPOC demonstrates that we are taking aggressive steps to combat organized crime. The funding requested means that IPOC will continue to pursue illicit proceeds, making it harder for organized criminals to do business and to profit from their crimes.

    The national weapons enforcement support team, or NWEST, is another example of the RCMP using its investigative capacity for public safety. NWEST was created in response to police concerns about the smuggling and trafficking of illegal weapons, as well as the violence caused by firearms. It aims to strengthen law enforcement's ability to deal with the smuggling and trafficking of weapons by supporting front line police agencies in gathering evidence to assist them in successfully prosecuting persons involved in the illegal movement and criminal use of firearms. NWEST members are available to the policing and law enforcement community to share their specialized experience and promote best practices. NWEST is achieving its objectives. Today NWEST has 34 members located across Canada. This includes several specialists with expertise in firearms investigations located at NWEST headquarters. NWEST began as an initiative of the Canadian firearms program, and it continues to support the program's aim of ensuring that firearms remain only in the hands of hunters, sport shooters, and others who use them in a lawful manner.

    We have made progress, Mr. Chairman, in other aspects of the Canadian firearms program, too. The program is meeting its commitment to process properly completed licence and registration forms within 45 and 30 days, respectively. Response rates for its 1-800 line are now a fraction of what they were earlier this year. Proposed regulations to further streamline administration are currently before Parliament. We ask for your support in that matter.

    As I have mentioned before, the $111.4 million funding designated for the Canada Firearms Centre in the supplementary estimates is a transfer--and I underline that it is a transfer--from the Department of Justice to the Firearms Centre. This follows the April 14 announcement of the transfer of the centre to my portfolio. The other $10 million was originally approved by Parliament in 2002-2003. It is a carry-over from funds approved but not spent. I would like to remind members of this committee that it is not new money.

    We're well underway in our implementation of the Government of Canada's action plan that the Minister of Justice and I announced on February 21 with regard to the Canadian firearms program. We've made important progress over the past several months and will continue to do so.

    Mr. Chair, each of the expenditures I have noted is an investment in my portfolio's objective of public safety and security. They are consistent with the principles of sound financial management and good governance.

    Mr. Chair, I'd be pleased to take questions.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: I'm sure there are members of the committee who would be pleased to put them.

    Mr. Sorenson, for seven minutes.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you to the Solicitor General for appearing before our committee today. We appreciate the opportunity to question you regarding some of the events that are happening in your department and also some of the estimates.

    Over the last week I have repeatedly attempted to get some answers from the Solicitor General regarding the closure of the RCMP forensic labs, more specifically the labs in Regina, Edmonton, and Halifax. To date, although you have mentioned what's happening in Regina, you have not answered the questions regarding Edmonton and Halifax.

    While you have failed to answer some of these questions, some rather disturbing statistics have been released in the media regarding turnaround times and the DNA evidence recovery units. According to the media, about 26% of the investigations that are marked urgent have met the RCMP's mandated timeline for turnaround. Some with a 15-day turnaround are not being met. Others with a 30-day turnaround are not being met. Of the ones marked urgent, only 26% are meeting that RCMP mandated timeline. Urgent cases are taking 55 days on average. Those marked routine are taking 90 days. I'm sure that the Solicitor General would agree that is an unacceptable turnaround rate. The Auditor General said years ago that it was unacceptable. Is there evidence that it's getting better, or was it worse than that originally? Are you quite satisfied with that turnaround time?

    With regard to Edmonton and Halifax, is it true that those forensic units are being closed? If they are, what are they going to be replaced with? We know that in Regina approximately seven are involved with DNA evidence recovery. I believe that in Edmonton seven are working with DNA, and in Halifax I think there are six.

    The evidence recovery units, you have said, will be centralized out of the Ottawa offices here. They will have a staff of only 10, which is half the current number. Because there is no evidence recovery unit in the Ottawa laboratory, renovations will have to be made. Can the Solicitor General provide us with the justification for closing down Edmonton, Halifax, and Regina and then moving it to Ottawa?

Á  (1120)  

    Hon. Wayne Easter: As you have repeatedly asked your questions, I've repeatedly answered them, but you just didn't seem to want to accept the answers. The evidence is there, as I said in the House, Mr. Sorenson, that the turnaround rates are improving. I think I indicated that in 1999-2000 we were looking at a 365-day turnaround time, and recently for urgent cases that is about 55 days.

    I have been assured by the RCMP--and I'll ask Garry to speak more on the issue--that none of the six forensic labs will be closed.

    With regard to Regina, as you mentioned, there is expertise there. That will become almost a centre of excellence. There's an increase of two full-time equivalents. I think that's an important point. The three you mentioned--Halifax, Edmonton, and Regina---will continue to work efficiently.

    The bottom line is that it was a recommendation of the Auditor General that efficiencies be created within the system. The RCMP abided by those recommendations. I believe it is in fact living up to those recommendations and is gaining efficiencies and improving turnaround times and doing the job better.

    I will ask Mr. Loeppky to get into some of the specifics.

     Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky (Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you very much, Minister.

    I would say at the outset that we were a little disappointed in the reporting that took place, because we had a meeting set up with a reporter for October 8, and the articles were published before we were able to provide him with the accurate data.

    First of all, to address the question about the delays and the threat to public safety, when a piece of evidence is submitted by an investigator, there's a process in place whereby a discussion takes place to assess the urgency of that request in order to ensure that where there are urgent needs, those are evaluated right at the outset. So we consult with the investigators. We've set a 15-day deadline. That's our self-imposed standard. By and large we're making a lot of progress toward that. In fact, the Auditor General was very complimentary in terms of the progress we are making.

    We are not closing any labs. What we are doing is consolidating--for example, the DNA services in two labs. As the committee would understand, DNA equipment is very expensive. There is a need to ensure that you have a broad base of expertise that can work together, share best practices, and continue on with the work when somebody is away, for example, on holidays or for additional training. We have made a decision to consolidate DNA analysis in two labs. That does not mean that the DNA front-end work is not done at the other labs. But it will be sent to two labs for that analysis.

    As an example of what we've done with some of the resourcing we've been provided with, we've gone very much to a robotics-based approach, which will see significant enhancements. Our current capacity is approximately 20,000 tests per year. Within the year that will be at 100,000. That's due to the enhancement we're making with technology. We're doing that in two labs. So a significant investment is being made to enhance the service.

    As I said, none of the labs are being closed. This is really about a process to ensure that we are more efficient and that we make better use of the dollars we have. We've had extensive consultations with employees to ensure that the disruption is minimal to them. There will be no overall loss of resources. In fact, there's an enhancement when you look at the overall component. So I'm confident that our services will continue to be enhanced in the future.

Á  (1125)  

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

    Mr. Lanctôt, seven minutes.

[Translation]

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

    I would like first of all to deal with an issue that is presently very newsworthy in Quebec, namely that there is some talk of closing down eight or nine police stations or detachments. We know that organized crime is still on the increase. There are constant requests for more funding, but for some reason that is unknown to us and to the RCMP people in Quebec...

    How can they both increase the budgets and consider closing down these stations, especially if we want to intensify our fight against organized crime?

    We are hearing two different discourses. I do not want to hear the one that says that we will rationalize and put the money where it is required and will allow us to do a better job, because in order to do the job, it is necessary for the RCMP to be present in Quebec to fight organized crime. Is it true that these decisions have been made and that the stations will be closed, or are you still considering doing so? What is the status in this decision making process?

[English]

    Hon. Wayne Easter: No final decision has been made with regard to restructuring in C Division, which is the province of Quebec. In terms of some of the studies that have been done, I think you should understand the basis on which it was done. The RCMP has a lot of federal responsibilities in the province of Quebec. That's not exactly the same as community policing. As part of that analysis, we've seen by experience in other areas that if you do bring all your human and technical resources together in terms of fighting organized crime, drugs, border crime, etc., you may be able to do a better job because you're looking at the big picture and not just community policing.

    I'll ask Garry to come in on this point as well, because he has been involved in some of the discussions in that regard.

    But I do want to underline that no final decision has been made. Decisions are pending.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thank you, Minister.

    That is accurate. No final decisions have been made.

    Perhaps I could use 30 seconds to speak about a past experience. When I was the commanding officer of J Division, which is in New Brunswick, we realized that we needed to try to eliminate some of the administrative overhead and to be more efficient. Consequently, we reduced the number of actual service points from approximately 42 to 13 administrative support areas. That was one method we implemented there to become more efficient.

    Now I want to turn to the province of Quebec. We are very sensitive about the local needs. There's no question about that. We want to be an organization that is aligned in terms of trying to pursue the key priorities we have, organized crime being, obviously, one of those we're very interested in. We need to ensure that we have an appropriate resource base in each area to undertake complex investigations, which very often require more than just two or three people. When we look at the picture of policing in the province of Quebec, we see that over the last several years there has been a reduction in the number of municipal police departments, from approximately 174 to 44, in order to try to become more efficient. So we're trying to make sure that we're aligned with those policing reforms and policing restructuring in the province of Quebec. There will be no job losses. That is certainly our commitment. We're not reducing resourcing levels in the province of Quebec. We are simply looking at trying to be more efficient. That is what the exercise is all about. Ongoing discussions are still taking place in that regard.

Á  (1130)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But how can you imagine being more efficient in the fight against organized crime if you are not present in the field and if these detachments are being closed down? It is not only a matter of human resources or an issue of having police officers in some places. For the time being, there are no job losses, but we know full well that in order to relocate people, at some point, eventually there will be job losses. But the most important aspect is being efficient and productive. I don't know if you are aware of the situation—you are surely more knowledgeable than I am—, but you merely have to do a short hop in an helicopter or airplane to see visually that corn fields have become an almost pervasive problem, in the sense that marijuana is being produced on almost all farm lands. It has become a scourge and it is obvious that if we do not have the help that is required, be it from the SQ or... The RCMP is important, but not in the offices. It is important to have them in the field, or perhaps I should say on the farm land.

    How could it be more effective and productive to bring back these people in the offices and in one centralized office instead of leaving them in the field? That is where they will succeed in doing a better job.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Lanctôt.

    Solicitor General.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll turn to Garry in a second.

    I know that in my own discussions in looking at this issue this is one of the areas that is really confusing and hard to understand. There is a difference. It's the nature of the crime that you're trying to fight. If you are, as in your example, dealing with crimes related to drugs, whether it's a marijuana grow operation or the smuggling of drugs across the border, you need a pretty sophisticated machine to go up against that kind of crime. You need all the tools and resources together to do the investigative analysis, etc., to get to not just the lowest individual on the totem pole who is involved in that organization, but the organization that's really behind the organization. That requires a lot more sophistication. I think we've shown in other areas that you can do a better job through some kind of consolidation.

    A final decision has not been made, certainly.

    I'll turn to Garry, if he wants to add to that.

    The Chair: Deputy Commissioner.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thanks, Minister.

    The vision the RCMP has is one of integrated policing, and integrated policing means working with la Sûreté du Québec and le Service de police de la ville de Montréal to ensure that the priorities, such as organized crime and youth, are targeted to the maximum ability we have in terms of working together. Organized crime investigations are extremely complex. You don't undertake one of those with two, three, or four people. It requires teams for the technical support and their surveillance. We are very sensitive about the concerns of the citizens of Quebec and certainly yourselves, and that's why we're studying this. But I am convinced, based on my experience, that if you are going to be effective against major organized crime groups, you need a solid, dedicated team. You need the ability to take away their proceeds of crime. So it has to be a holistic approach. Based on my experience, trying to do a major organized crime investigation with one or two people is very difficult. So that's the basis of our looking at the restructuring.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Mark, seven minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to thank the minister and the witnesses for appearing before us today.

    Over the last six years I have actually spent a fair amount of time with the RCMP, because they predominantly police my riding of Dauphin--Swan River. I have spoken to many staff sergeants and superintendents--they come and go--and it's always the same problem. It's a lack of funds. They do their darndest to stay within their budget. In fact, you always end up with a surplus. The problem, as Mr. Lanctôt said, is a lack of people on the street, who do the real work.

    The reason I say this is because there is money in the system. Let me just make a comment about this whole business of the long gun registry. The data consistently show that it's probably a waste of money. It's unfortunate that somebody doesn't just say let's stop and take a look at this thing and evaluate it for the return on the dollars we spend. So it's not a lack of money. Just imagine what we could do for safety, police, and security if we gave that million bucks to the RCMP and let them spend it. I don't think we'd have many comments about security or safety in this country.

    Even the Auditor General in her report of 2002 wanted more accountability on how money is spent in both Justice and the Solicitor General's department. On page 19 she says, “The implementation of a restructuring plan, which included a simplified application process and a redesigned system, has already yielded cost reductions”. She goes on to say, “The government has tabled amendments to the Firearms Act (C-10) that would further improve program efficiency and allow for alternative means of program delivery”.

    I have two questions. The first one deals with the $10 million. The most recent information I have is that in the Senate finance committee it was indicated that the $10 million, which is under the column entitled new allocation, was actually leftover money for Bill C-10A, which wasn't passed. If they asked for the money before the legislation was passed, what does that say about the system? Do other departments do the same thing? The other question is, what have you done to improve efficiency? If you've done the work to improve efficiency, why do you need another $10 million?

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Solicitor General.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: If either Bill or Garry wants to come in on this one, they can.

    Perhaps I could, Mr. Mark, tie the two issues together.

    First, on the policing side, we have put a lot of additional resources toward national security and policing over the last several years. Coming out of the 2001 security budget, there were $7.7 billion for a number of things. A substantial part of that money went toward policing and security issues. In the main estimates, the budget for the RCMP was increased by $85.3 million, as compared with the previous fiscal year. We're requesting some funding from the supplemental budget here for the integrated proceeds of crime salaries, etc. That has to do with the issues we and the RCMP see as priorities, which are fighting organized crime, public security, anti-terrorism, Canadian youth, international policing, and aboriginal community policing. So there has been a substantial increase in funding toward that area, and I think that's a good thing. I have been to a depot in Regina a couple of times in the past six months, and they're going full out in terms of training new recruits and trying to keep the human resources up to speed, and I think that's a good thing. So I believe we are doing our job in terms of increasing funding on the policing side.

    On the $10 million, I think the Speaker ruled on that particular issue that it's not new funding. I think you indicated in your remarks that it wasn't spent. It was Department of Justice money. I think people ought to be clear in understanding the estimates. One of the reasons it's not sometimes spent is because it has to be spent where it's allocated to. That's one of the safeguards that Parliament creates so that money is spent where it's allocated to. That's why you see transfers in the supps sometimes and--

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: How can you ask for money when the bill is not law?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: What bill is not law?

    Mr. Inky Mark: Bill C-10.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: Certainly, we want to see Bill C-10 implemented as law. Bill C-10 is important to us in terms of creating some of the efficiencies we said we want to create within the system. In fact, it has been a bit of a cost burden as a result of that not being put through. We need to put that behind us so we can ensure that the efficiencies we all want are in the Canada Firearms Centre.

    Mr. Inky Mark: When you ask for money, don't you designate that money under Bill C-10A?

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Baker.

    Mr. William Baker (Commissioner of Firearms, Canada Firearms Centre): Thank you.

    First of all, Bill C-10A has received royal assent. The regulations have been tabled in Parliament. We're in the process of consulting with Canadians to finalize those. So we have the statutory approval for Bill C-10A.

    The $10 million was that part of the Firearms Centre budget from 2002-2003 that was to pay the contractor, who has been working with us for a couple of years now, to build a more modern delivery system for licensing and registration. The existing system has a number of deficiencies in it. We're continuing to operate that system, and we have made some improvements. In building the new system, previous management rightfully thought it was wise to build a new system around the anticipated new regulations and law so that it wouldn't have to be re-engineered.

    Mr. Inky Mark: But what--

    The Chair: Your time is up.

    Mr. Baker, continue.

    Mr. William Baker: I think that was good foresight so that the new system will be able to accommodate the new rules contemplated by Parliament.

    The Chair: Mr. Nystrom for seven minutes.

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

    I welcome Mr. Easter and the officials here this morning.

    I want to ask you, Mr. Easter, about the case of Mr. Arar and his deportation from the United States to Syria. That has been in the news the last little while. There seems to be some confusion involving the communication between the Canadian government and the American government. I want to ask you a very specific question: was there in fact communication between the two governments regarding Mr. Arar prior to the United States deporting him to Syria?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: Your question, Lorne, just so that I'm clear, is was there communication between the two governments prior to. I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made it clear that there was not. The Government of Canada was very much taken by surprise. It was an American decision made on American soil with regard to their laws. I believe that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and even the Prime Minister, along with others, made great efforts to get Mr. Arar back to Canada. That has now happened.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: When did the government first intervene on behalf of our Canadian citizen, Mr. Arar, and start making representations to the United States?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I think, Mr. Chair, with all due respect, that's a question that would more appropriately be put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I was not privy to that discussion. I do know that when the Arar family contacted Canadian authorities through Foreign Affairs, they immediately tried to make every effort to get Mr. Arar returned.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: After reflecting for a couple of days, have you changed your mind at all about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of an inquiry as to what actually happened?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I certainly have not changed my mind in terms of an inquiry. I do believe that the RCMP has operated within its mandate and the laws of Canada. As I've said a number of times, the RCMP has assured me that they were not involved in the decision to arrest and deport, nor did the RCMP suggest that Mr. Arar be deported.

    I know that there seems to be some controversy around not wanting to speak about operational details. I can understand why there may be confusion around that. But the fact of the matter is that to do so would basically violate law and practice in this country. We do not speak about the operations of the RCMP, nor about RCMP investigations that are ongoing, because it could violate an individual's privacy and it could jeopardize the integrity of other ongoing investigations.

Á  (1145)  

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I was asking a question about something that happened in the past. To the best of your knowledge, was there any communication between the RCMP and authorities in the United States?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I would have to turn that one over to Garry.

    I have been assured, as I've said, a number of times by the RCMP that they were not involved in the decision by the Americans.

    In a very general sense—and this is something we're quite proud of and where we've made great strides forward—we've set up 12 of a targeted 14 integrated border enforcement teams. I've been to some of those. I've seen how they operate on the ground with the RCMP, the FBI, and local police, both States-side and Canada-side, and how we continually do a better job of enhancing our national security and public safety by a greater awareness of issues on both sides of the border and in fulfilling the RCMP's and really my mandate.

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

    The Chair: Deputy Commissioner.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thanks, Minister.

    You've covered it well.

    I would only add that--and I won't be case specific--following 9/11, I was checking with our criminal intelligence area, and the increase in the workload in terms of responding to international inquiries and dealing with concerns from other organizations outside the country has gone up more than tenfold. That's a reflection of the international effort that's required to undertake investigations and inquiries that relate to national security. And these are primarily related to national security. I haven't included the ones that relate to organized crime.

    It's important to recognize that kind of relationship is really the lifeblood of working together internationally and of our respecting other organizations' requirements to maintain confidentiality and their respecting our needs. To start disclosing ongoing investigations would not only compromise investigations, it could potentially lead to serious harm to sources. It would compromise the rights of individuals in terms of privacy. So we are very concerned about those components, because the end objective is to ensure that nobody is tarred with a stigma that they should not be. Our objective is to ensure that Canada and Canadians remain safe, and we do that on an integrated international basis with other countries.

    The Chair: Very quickly, Mr. Nystrom.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I have only one question, and I will direct it to the Solicitor General. I remember him when he used to live in Saskatoon. I can see him thundering from the platform against Bill C-68 if he had out there in the last few years in places like Kamsack, Radville, Kayville, and Moose Jaw, and righteous indignation would be coming from his lips. I want to ask him why he had this great conversion on the road to Damascus. Was it the invitation to the federal cabinet? Does he really and sincerely believe that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a gun registry is worth while in protecting public safety? He knows the stand of our two provincial NDP governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which are very much opposed to Bill C-68, as am I, and that they're not going to be cooperating whatsoever with the federal government in terms of prosecuting offenders and so on. So why this great conversion on the way to Damascus? I can just hear his speeches ringing in my ears. I can see the smile on his face, because he knows what I'm saying is absolutely true. I'd like to know why he was converted on the road to Damascus. I ask him that as a good friend from a long time ago.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: That's an interesting question, Lorne, and we certainly remain friends. They were great speeches, weren't they.Thank you for that compliment.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Á  (1150)  

    Hon. Wayne Easter: The fact of the matter is that I always enjoy a good debate. I have not changed. I want to outline to the honourable member, Mr. Chair, that I have not changed. My principles remain very sound. I think that when you're in a farm movement--and that's why I enjoy sitting down with so many organizations--there are several points of view on these issues, and you have to lay all those points of view on the table in a direct way and come to conclusions. That's the way I continue to operate. So we analyze the information. We make decisions based on the information that's before us. I believe that within this department and the Government of Canada we've come to some very sound decisions, and that's why this country is in the kind of shape it's in.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, I'm just trying to find out which vote your principles are under.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I'm going to Mr. Jobin for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Solicitor General, for appearing here this morning, together with the members of your team, before the Committee on justice and human rights.

    I would like to come back to the issue that Mr. Lanctôt raised earlier, that is the restructuring of RCMP services in some ridings of the province of Quebec, and more particularly for five of my colleagues who have talked to me about it very recently.

    The Deputy Commissioner for Operations said earlier that the RCMP is playing a different role in Quebec. I understand that. He also talked about the fact that there is a realignment of police services in Quebec, both municipal and provincial. I agree on that as well. He also said that there would be no job losses. So all employees of the RCMP would be reassigned elsewhere, in other services. So, if there are no savings to be made on salaries, I wonder why they are doing all this work and closing border stations or isolated stations such as the Magdalen Islands.

    I would like as well to know whether your concern for efficiency takes into account the sense of security that people need to have, especially in some ridings in Quebec, which is being ensured by a police presence in the field. I would like to know whether you are concerned at all by this sense of security in the ridings of Quebec that are affected by this restructuring of RCMP services in Quebec.

[English]

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll ask the deputy commissioner to comment as well.

    I think the bottom line in terms of looking at the RCMP, whether it's C Division or any other division in the country, is how to do the best job possible in terms of public safety with the resources you're allocated and what your priorities are in any given area. The RCMP involvement in Quebec is quite different from what it is in contract policing in my province, where the job of the RCMP is manyfold. There are federal responsibilities as well. It's speeding, break and enter, etc., in my province, which it isn't in yours. It's looking at the much bigger federal issues, such as drug enforcement, integrated, as the deputy commissioner said earlier, with local police forces in terms of doing that job. So the bottom line is how to carry out your responsibilities in the best way possible.

    Lorne is laughing over there.

    It's keeping in check demonstrations across the country as well.

    I'll turn to Garry.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thank you, Minister.

    I want to assure the honourable member from Quebec that this is not about a loss of efficiency or a lack of concern about the community. In fact, it really is focused on trying to bring more security and safety to the population of Quebec. When you deal with organized crime, it takes a very significant effort to actually have a meaningful impact. As I think back over the last several years, project Carcajou in Montreal and Spring Cleanup/Printemps 2001, where charges have been laid so I can speak about it publicly, were investigations that brought together a significant number of organizations. That required us to temporarily put people in bigger teams, which would allow us to be more effective. That's what integrated, intelligence-led policing in tackling organized crime is all about. So we certainly have not lost focus on the needs of the citizens or on the concerns that exist. That is why there are ongoing discussions to ensure that we have a good debate and have the input that's necessary. But I do believe that if we're to have a meaningful impact for the citizens of Quebec and ultimately the citizens of Canada, we have to operate as effectively as possible against organized crime, and that takes pretty significant integrated, dedicated teams.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Jobin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Christian Jobin: I am glad that you gave the example of project Carcajou, because I have had to work with Carcajou a few years ago. I was the mayor of a small municipality on whose territory the Hell's Angels were trying to gain a foothold and if, at that time, as mayor, I had transferred my police department to the Sûreté du Québec, if I had centralized the whole thing, as you are saying, out of a concern for efficiency, we would never have succeeded in driving the Hell's Angels out of the territory of Saint-Étienne-de-Lauzon, the municipality of which I was the mayor. So the concern for efficiency sometimes require having some presence on the field to protect the citizens. That is the reason why I am calling on you in order to avoid a wall to wall, coast to coast solution for all Canada, and so that Quebec's reality will be taken into account, especially in the Magdalen Islands, where my colleague Georges Farrah told me this week that drugs is being dropped into the water out of airplanes and recovered by boat, and that there was only one officer in the whole Magdaleine Islands charged with enforcing security in the area of drug smuggling. If, out of a concern for efficiency, this lone officer in Magdaleine Islands is being removed, it would be a darn mess in the islands and the people will be very concerned. I am telling you all this as I see it.

    I would like to know as well if it is the same situation as that of Environment Canada, when they decided, out of a concern for effectiveness, to close down some offices. At one point, it was a rumor and overnight, it became the reality. I would like to know whether the MPs from Quebec can still approach the Solicitor General to relay the concerns of the community, or whether it is a final decision that we are being told here this morning.

[English]

    Hon. Wayne Easter: We hear your concerns. You've mentioned Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Georges Farrah, the MP for that area, certainly made his representations known, as well as Gérard here.

    As I indicated at the beginning in response to a question from the opposition side, no final decision has been made. We've committed that there will be further consultations before any final decision is in fact made.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming before the committee to answer our questions.

    I have two main questions. The first question stems from the Report of the Auditor General of last December 3. She stated that the biggest problem she detected with the gun registry was not the huge cost overruns, which were very serious and concerned her greatly, but the fact that Parliament was being kept in the dark. Nine months have passed since that time. The minister in charge of the gun registry promised Parliament and the Auditor General that he would tell us how many millions other government departments and agencies have spent on the gun registry. We still have not received an answer. I put it to you again today: how much is it going to cost to fully implement the gun registry and to maintain it year after year? Can you give us an answer today? It has been nine months since the Auditor General said that this has to be reported to Parliament.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: As we've made very clear, the Government of Canada was very concerned about the cost overruns in the Canadian firearms program since its implementation. We accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General. We're moving to implement those recommendations. In fact, it is one of the reasons the decision was made to transfer the Canada Firearms Centre from the Department of Justice to the Department of the Solicitor General. That's now up and running. We announced early in the year, both the Minister of Justice and myself, an action plan for the firearms program. There are 16 points in that action plan, and 12 of them are completed and four are still underway. I don't want to take the time here, but I can get into them if you want me to.

    In terms of the Hession report, there are 16 recommendations there, and 11 of those are done, three are ongoing, and two are not done because they require some legislative change.

    But the bottom line is that we have reduced costs and improved management. We've substantially improved the service to the public. We've sought input from parliamentarians and stakeholders. Those discussions are ongoing. We've strengthened the accountability and transparency. That's what this meeting is about. The funding is outlined in the estimates and the supps.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Minister, you're not answering my question. With all due respect, I have asked how much it is going to cost to fully implement and maintain it. That's what the Auditor General said. There were many departments and agencies that she could not gather the costs from. Let me give you some idea of what I'm talking about. The Library of Parliament showed that the enforcement costs alone could easily add up to another $1 billion and that the compliance costs for licensing and registration could be another $1 billion. That's a total of $3 billion. When are you going to provide this kind of vital information to Parliament? Mr. Baker told a meeting of senators and MPs that the government had completed a cost-benefit analysis on the gun registry, but he couldn't release it because it was a cabinet secret. Are you prepared, Mr. Minister, to provide us with a real cost-benefit analysis today? Are you going to come clean and tell us what all the costs are? Will you release that cost-benefit analysis? I don't hear the answer coming from you at all. You're not even remotely addressing what I'm asking you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

    That's the question.

    Mr. Minister.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I will ask Mr. Baker to come in on this question.

    I want to outline very clearly to Mr. Breitkreuz that I've always come clean on this issue. We've been very transparent on this issue. We have said that we would get the costs under control. I know that from your perspective, you have a personal vendetta on this issue. That's your choice and that's your right. But if we went on the kind of hunt you're talking about, where you trace a piece of paper here and a piece of paper there.... We put the costs upfront so that they can be seen. They're in the estimates, and they're very clear. We said that we would manage the CFC in a transparent way, and we're in fact doing that.

    I'll turn to Bill, if he wants to elaborate on that.

    Mr. William Baker: As you are aware, the Minister of Justice accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General's report, and our commitment to follow through and make those improvements still holds firm.

    When we're talking about full-cost reporting, the first step was to identify what those additional costs were, particularly with regard to other departments incurring costs related to the firearms program. We have done that for the last fiscal year. There are some limitations, obviously, in going back in time because not all the records were kept. But we started doing that with the last fiscal year. Those details will be reported in the Department of Justice's performance report when it is tabled later this fall. We will have to wait for that. It is in the Department of Justice's performance report because the program was under the justice department for that year.

    The second point I would make is that with the decision to transfer the program to the Solicitor General, there was also a decision made to establish the Firearms Centre as a separate departmental entity in government, which means that it now has its own vote structure and budget and its own separate reporting to Parliament. That whole process will begin in earnest next year as we begin our full year of operation as a stand-alone organization. So there will be detail in the justice department's performance report, which will be coming out soon. There will also be a separate budget when the main estimates come out next year and our own report on plans and priorities and then a full departmental report next fall as a full entity. So I think we're making good progress in achieving the objectives.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Now it's Mr. Macklin.

    That was seven minutes on a three-minute round, Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Macklin.

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

    Thank you very much, Minister and witnesses, for appearing today.

    Something happened today at this committee. An announcement was made earlier that a bill we were looking at suddenly was postponed. That is the one on the national sex offender registry. I'm a bit concerned. Since the occasion presents itself, I would like to know where we are going with this sex offender registry. Has this anything to do with your federal/provincial/ territorial meetings? I'm concerned, because we all are cognizant of the time and energy we're trying to bring to bear on this issue.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I hope it's not delayed too long by committee, because we dearly want to get the national sex offender registry through the system and up and running as quickly as possible.

    We brought in the legislation for the national sex offender registry on the basis of a consensus we had in October or November 2002 at the federal/provincial/territorial meeting. There was not a consensus at that time to make it retroactive either partially or fully. So when we brought in the legislation, we thought that it was necessary to keep the consensus in place and bring in the legislation based on that consensus.

    We also had some charter concerns about going fully retroactive. I wanted to ensure that the legislation, when it came forward, would stand the test of the courts and the test of time, because it is an important piece of legislation.

    At the federal/provincial/territorial meeting that was just held, agreement was reached that the national sex offender registry should be brought in as soon as possible and that it should pass this fall. Although some wanted to go a little farther and some a little less, basically a consensus was reached to at least make the legislation retroactive for those individuals who are in the correctional system at the time of proclamation, if I got that correct. We're working on that, and we want to work with the committee to get that amendment in place. I know that some will not be entirely happy. They would like it to be retroactive a little farther. We believe, based on the consensus we have, that the provinces and territories are happy with this proposal and that it is in compliance with the charter. We're doing our utmost to get the amendment prepared in a way that is satisfactory to all parties involved. We'll have that to you in very quick time. We hope the committee can deal with it and carry it through.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)): Thank you, Minister.

    Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

    Monsieur Lanctôt for three minutes.

[Translation]

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

    I would like to make two remarks before dealing with the firearms registry. Your studies are completed, you said that your decision is not final, that you are still thinking about it, and you added in answering the question put my colleague opposite, Mr. Jobin, that you will make further consultations.

    Will you make some more studies? Will you consult the people locally? Because the people concerned, be it your own employees, or the population of Quebec, or the elected representatives, members of Parliament or mayors, all are unanimous. When you say that you still have to consult, do you mean consulting the elected representatives, consulting the people or make yet other studies? We want to be clear on this. Even my colleagues opposite are working together with us to fight these closures; we are unanimous on this. What are these consultations? I hope that it is not yet more studies. Be clear. Was the decision made to close down? I hope that your reflection on this will consist in listening to the people and listening to their elected representatives and that it will not be closed down. I hope, when you are saying that your decision is not final, that you mean rather that you will change your mind and decide not to close them. That is what I would like to hear.

  (1210)  

[English]

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll ask the deputy commissioner to come in on some of those consultations that have been carried out.

    As I indicated earlier, a final decision has not been made. I want to be very clear on that.

    There have been a lot of consultations with stakeholders and people within the RCMP. I'll ask Garry to explain that a little further.

    The difficulty in terms of this decision is that you never like to close a building in a community, but you also have the priority of doing the best job possible in terms of your responsibilities as an organization, whatever they may be. In this case, in terms of federal policing, it is a mandate with regard to drug enforcement and organized crime and ensuring that the federal statutes are protected. And you have to balance that.

    I just want to underline that a final decision has not been made, and consultations are indeed ongoing.

    Garry.

    The Chair: Deputy Commissioner.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Perhaps I can provide a bit of context and background. A committee was put together by the commanding officer in C Division, and that committee carried out consultations with a wide variety of clients, both internal and other policing partners, to get their sense of working in a more integrated way. Indeed, there were some discussions with the communities. I'm not sure of the extent of that discussion because I was not part of that committee, but it clearly was about enhancing service.

    When we talk about closing detachments, I think what we need to think about is the context of providing better service delivery, and that's really what we're trying to do. I recognize that in any change process there will be employees who do not agree with the direction an organization takes if they don't understand the full context of what you're trying to achieve. I'm not suggesting that's widespread, but I am suggesting, having gone through a lot of change processes in my 31 years of service in the RCMP, that there will always be resistance to change. Sometimes that is resolved when people see that you're operating more efficiently in terms of community safety.

    But as the minister has said, the decision has not been made, and there are discussions.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. McKay, three minutes.

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

    I want to continue the fine tradition of this committee of asking questions when we're discussing the supplementary estimates that have absolutely nothing to do with supplementary estimates.

    Canada is home to the largest Sri Lankan diaspora community in the world. It's naive to think that organizations such as the LTTE don't carry on some sort of activity in this country. It's also of great interest to our Sri Lankan community and to Canadians generally that the peace process that's going on there succeed. I'm not sure you'd describe it as peace as much as an absence of war. In order to obtain peace, the international community is going to have to be involved. The international community obviously involves Canada because we have a unique interest in that part of the world. In order to to do that, we have to be able to communicate effectively with the leaders of the LTTE, and that is well described as a terrorist organization. I'm concerned, Minister, that the Government of Canada will list LTTE somewhat prematurely and will in fact make the activities of other branches of the Government of Canada and the representatives in breach of our own law. So I'd appreciate it if you could say to this committee that while the peace process is continuing, there will be no active consideration of listing that organization as a terrorist entity.

  (1215)  

    Hon. Wayne Easter: Thank you for your question, John. I certainly take note of your concerns.

    The listing process is ongoing, as you know. It is based entirely on criminal and security intelligence information. There are 31 entities listed under that process now. I've said a number of times--and I can't express this strenuously enough--that we have to divorce ourselves from the politics of any given situation in terms of the listing process. That's the way we will continue to move forward. That's just the bottom line. The process is strenuous. It is based clearly on criminal and security intelligence information, and it's ongoing. It's on that basis that any future listings will be brought forward to add to the 31 that are already listed.

    The Chair: Mr. Mark, four minutes.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Just for the record, I still can't understand how a department can request money for legislation that's not law.

    My question deals with your future and the future of the department.

    As you know, during the leadership debate in Whitehorse on May 10, Paul Martin, in speaking about the cost of the gun registry and the way it treats northerners, said, “I don't believe that the review has gone nearly far enough. I don't think the solutions in terms of the complexity of the issue are where they should be at all. Nor do I believe that the program put down to control the cost has gone far enough”. As you know, Mr. Minister, it is routine for the public service to work on policy options to assist an incoming government. Are you aware of any work being done to develop new policy options that would allow Mr. Martin to control the costs of this gun registry?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: What date did you say that was?

    Mr. Inky Mark: May 10.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: We'll certainly have to bring Mr. Martin up to date on what has happened since May 10, because a lot of good stuff has happened since then. As I indicated earlier, on the 16-point action plan, we're fairly well along that road, and on the Hession report, we're fairly well along that road. Anybody who would wish to be the leader of any party would certainly want to make their decisions based on the most up-to-date information. We'll be sure to get that up-to-date information to Mr. Martin when the opportunity presents itself.

    The Chair: We'll send the transcript, Mr. Easter.

    Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark: On April 14 a joint news release from the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General said, “The Government of Canada is currently implementing a series of changes for an improved, more cost-effective gun control program”. Exactly what are the changes for an improved, more cost-effective gun control program?

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll ask Bill to speak on that.

    I think that to a great extent we have already outlined those by where we went in the action plan.

    I've said from the very beginning--and I want to be clear on this--I've recognized that there were fairly strenuous problems with the program in the beginning. I've met with gun shop owners. I've talked to gun owners in my own community and across the country. I've met with the Unregistered Firearms Owners Association. They've had valid concerns, and we've done our utmost to try to overcome those concerns and make the system work. Bill Casey, the member of Parliament for Cumberland, set up a website, and people sent e-mails outlining some of their concerns and the problems they were having. That was very helpful to us. We understand the frustration that was out there two years ago. By outlining the very practical concerns some gun owners have had, we can see the example, and as an organization we can move to correct it. That's what Bill Baker and his team have in fact been doing. When there are concerns, we'd like to hear them directly so that they can be addressed. We want this system to work for hunters, shooters, and others who use guns, as well as for the safety of the general community, and that's what we're trying our utmost to do.

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

  (1220)  

    Mr. William Baker: The action plan announced by the government set out a number of items to try to improve service, reduce costs, improve our accountability, and so on. I'm pleased to see that excellent progress has been made in all areas by the team at the Firearms Centre .

    On the service side, that's also a cost issue. Many Canadians were rightfully upset with the time it took to access the 1-800 line, to get registrations processed, and to use the Internet system. We moved very quickly to improve that level of service. We monitor this, and we keep records. For instance, the phones are being answered within minutes right now, and the Internet system works perfectly. That also reduces costs to them. These are gun vendors and individuals who are using their valuable time to comply with the system.

    Inside we've been working on a comprehensive review of the organization and the spending to try to achieve the efficiencies we can achieve. A lot of this is, of course, tied up to moving to a new delivery system, which we are at the precipice of being able to do, assuming we get regulations through.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Mark.

    Monsieur Binet, three minutes.

[Translation]

    Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic): Mr. Chair, I do not really have any question to ask, because my colleagues have dealt with the issue previously.

    I am one of the MPs who learn in the media and not from our minister that they represent an area where one or several stations would be closed. I represent the constituency of Frontenac—Mégantic. In Mégantic, there is presently a station and in Thedford Mines, there was one ten years ago.

    I had the opportunity to mingle with many police officers because having been involved in taekwondo for almost 30 years, I have teached martial arts to some of them. I also have been the owner of three businesses, including a bar, and I have lived through the evolving situation when the RCMP left Thedford Mines. There was an SQ police station in Saint-Georges, which is less then an hour away from Thedford Mines, where they dealt with drugs. So I have been a witness of the evolving structure of the organization that was put in place in Thedford Mines for the fight against drugs.

    The Hell's Angels have made their nest in Quebec. One of the reasons for this situation is that they are issuing so many bar licences in Quebec, compared to other provinces, that some of them unavoidably find themselves in financial difficulties and that's when you see organized crime getting into it, because the Hell's Angels do not hang around churches, they hang around in places where they can sell drugs.

    What I am trying to tell you is the fact that I have seen the situation evolving toward the establishment of really structured organized crime due to the fact that we have lost the RCMP detachment in Thedford Mines. At that time, I was not a member of Parliament, but I had a good knowledge of the RCMP.

    At the present time, in Mégantic, when there is talk about centralizing all services in Drummondville, obviously we are being told, including by members of the RCMP, that there will certainly be a lot of people wearing white collars and ties, and there will not be anyone left in the field.

    We are going through the same situation in the area of health. What we see are nurses who are busy working on their computer, filing up forms, and never caring for sick people; sick people are being cared for by attendants. Have we reached this stage where we want to centralize everything? At election time, both provincially and federally, we are being told that everything will be decentralized, but what we see is the opposite. Obviously, I understand that in order to do an inquiry, you need experts, because it is getting more complex, but if there is no one in the field...

  (1225)  

[English]

    The Chair: Because you're new, I thought I should explain that the three minutes is supposed to include both the question and the answer.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Okay, I am winding up.

[English]

    The Chair: The minister's answers sometimes look like the Confederation Bridge, so perhaps we could get to a question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Mr. Chair, I have already put my question in the House this week and I was not happy with the answer I got. I told so to the Solicitor General, and I obviously would like to have a really more specific answer.

[English]

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I indicated in the House that no final decision had been made.

    But I do want to say, Mr. Binet, that you have certainly made representations on this issue to me before, and I thank you for that. You've outlined before this committee your concerns and some of your community's concerns and why they feel that way. I think it's our job and the RCMP's responsibility as well that if changes were to occur in the future, we would need to be able to address the concerns you have raised.

    The end result must be that the RCMP has the greatest ability, both from a resourcing and personnel point of view, to do what it's mandated to do within C Division, or within the province of Quebec. That's the bottom line at the end of the day, that the RCMP is able to carry out its responsibilities under the various acts it has to abide by to get the job done on organized crime, drugs, federal statutes, etc., in the province of Quebec to the best of its ability.

    The consultations are ongoing. I thank you for your intervention. You've been most helpful in terms of giving me an understanding of your concerns.

    I don't know, Garry, if I've covered it all or there's something you would like to add.

    The Chair: Deputy Commissioner and then Mr. Nystrom.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I just wanted to clarify that this is not about less visibility on the streets. This is about more visibility in terms of attacking organized crime. If I can just refer very briefly to my example in New Brunswick, by reducing the administrative support units from 42 to 13, we eliminated a number of people who were administering things such as annual leave and returns. That allowed us to put some people who had been in the office back on the road. When you're talking about organized crime, you need maximum resourcing on the road. That's what the objective is. I'm certainly sensitive to small community needs. I've worked in small communities, and I know the concerns there. We're trying to provide better service overall and to be more efficient in terms of attacking organized crime. Using the example of the drugs arriving in Îles-de-la-Madeleine, those drugs had their origin with an organized crime group. We have to strike at the heart of those groups that are producing it and deriving huge profits while still being sensitive to the local community needs.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Nystrom.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I want to go back to the Arar case. I have with me a copy of the Toronto Star of this morning. In an article written by Graham Fraser, he says that the American officials were in touch with Canadian officials, but because they could not get any guarantee that Mr. Arar would be detained when he went back to Ottawa, they decided to detain him, and they then sent him to Syria.

    As the minister knows, following September 11, U.S officials now check all passenger lists on flights that go into or pass through the United States. They found out his name because he was travelling through New York.

    I want to quote from the article. It says:

When it was noted that Arar was a Canadian, Canadian security was contacted. “They asked, 'Do you have anything on him,'”an official closely involved in the case said, on condition that he not be quoted by name.

“'Yes indeed,' they were told. 'He is watched because he has been to Afghanistan several times.'”

On the basis of that, the official said, Arar was arrested when the plane landed in New York City.

“Then they said to the Canadians 'If we transfer that man to you, can you give us the assurance that you will lay charges against him?'” the official said. And the Canadian police told them 'No, we don't have anything to lay charges against him. We can't bring any charges.'

And the Americans said '“If you aren't going to do anything, if you are going to let him go free...'” According to the official, Canadian officials replied, “Wait a minute, he has already worked for two years in Boston and you never bothered to do anything about him.”

“And now he's back in Canada...all we can say is that he has previously been in Afghanistan. That's not enough, given our Charter of Rights.”

The Americans said “Obviously we can do nothing with you,” and, without any notification to Canadian consular officials, Arar was transported to Jordan.

“He stayed 10 days in Amman, because the Syrians didn't want to take him,” the official said. “They were the most surprised in the world; they didn't want to take him. But after 10 days of American pressure, they finally agreed.”

    I want to ask the minister if he can explain to us what did happen. Who was in touch with the American authorities? Why was he sent to Amman for 10 days? Obviously, Canadian authorities knew about this. Why didn't they intervene at that particular time and have him brought back to Canada and investigate to see if there was any substance to any of these claims? Why can't he be more forthright with the committee? We now have people speaking in public about this. Obviously, there was contact between Canadian officials and the American officials. We were consulted. So why did this happen? I think the time has come for you to be more forthright with the committee, or your colleague in the RCMP.

  (1230)  

    Hon. Wayne Easter: If anyone wants to add something, they certainly can.

    I've been as forthright as I can be with both the foreign affairs committee and this committee, Mr. Chair. What I can tell you is that regardless of how the United States made its decision, when the Canadian government became aware that Mr. Arar had been deported to Syria, the Canadian government, as I said earlier, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs right up to the Prime Minister himself, made every effort possible to have him returned to Canada. That has now happened. That's all I can say. I don't know how the Americans made their decision, but they made a decision in their own right under their own laws. We may question how they made that decision and why, which we have done and are continuing to do. But the fact of the matter is that we made every effort as a country to get Mr. Arar back here, and he is now here.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Can you confirm that they did that after consulting Canadian officials?

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

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I wonder if the RCMP representative wants to add something to this.

    The Chair: Deputy Commissioner, did you want to add something to that?

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: No, I really don't have anything to add to what the minister has said.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

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

    If Mr. Fraser of the Toronto Star has evidence that appears to contradict what you're being told here, he might want to bring it to the RCMP so that they can investigate the accuracy of that information.

    Being from Quebec, although I'm from an urban riding, I want to touch on the concerns of my colleagues in my caucus about the possibility that local RCMP stations may be closing. I want to approach it from the fact that my professional experience prior to coming into politics allowed me to have a pretty intimate eye on the workings of police organizations. You put into action a process to re-evaluate the actual deployment of your resources--human, physical, material, etc.--for the region of Quebec with the view of determining whether that was the best way of achieving the priorities and goals that have been set for the RCMP for that region. Public consultation obviously has to be one of the criteria. I'd like to know what other criteria were developed to create the lens or the prism through which you're doing that evaluation and what weight was given to each of the criteria.

    You speak of your experience with organizational change in New Brunswick. You mentioned that there was resistance to change, but in fact efficiencies were created. Did the RCMP actually do any studies on the public perception of their level of security given the presence of the RCMP when you had the 40-some-odd stations? Did you then conduct studies about their perception of their level of security once you began reducing the number of stations? Did you conduct studies about their perception of their level of security following the completion of the reorganization to determine whether or not those perceptions changed? Did they change in a way that was positive? Did they change in a way that was negative? I think that's really important. What weight was given to public perception about the physical presence on their local territory in the evaluation of whether or not reorganization should take place, and if so, to what extent?

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: There are a lot of questions there, Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm sure that Deputy Commissioner Loeppky can answer all of them.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I will say this. The C Division issue has come up at this committee. We will take the points raised under consideration.

    Perhaps the deputy commissioner can answer some of those questions.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I'll certainly try to answer as many of the questions as I recall.

    First of all, when I talked about 42 detachments in New Brunswick, I was talking about 42 full-service detachments, which had the support staff who did all of the administrative functions. When we looked at harmonizing some of those so that you would have one administrative service centre for a number of posts, some of the communities, and there was broad consultation with the communities.... It's very important to recognize that in New Brunswick we are the front line contract policing service that responds to bicycle thefts, domestic disputes, and those types of things. That is not the case in the province of Quebec, where we have a federal role. There was a lot of consultation with the communities, because that perception existed. I think what has been demonstrated in the long run is that when you take a detachment that has a sergeant, two supervisors, and eight constables and you suddenly have only one supervisor, because you have the other people on the road now--they're not doing the administrative tasks in the offices, the scoring of files and those types of things--you certainly have more visibility. I think that over a period of time that has been borne out, based on my recollection of the most recent survey of the communities. But it's also important to highlight that the reason we were able to do that was because we had the technology infrastructure that allowed us to work off of one common server and all that electronic file management. All that is to say that short term there's concern in the community, but longer term, I think they actually saw more people on the road in their communities.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Is that the truth in Ontario?

    The Chair: No, Ms. Jennings, not a chance. That took five minutes. Not even close.

    Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    It's interesting to note that even when the Liberals, such as Mr. Binet, ask questions in question period, they sometimes are frustrated by this Solicitor General's answers. We know the feeling.

    I have two questions. First of all, in 1995, with a great deal of fanfare, the department rolled out a $12 million state-of-the-art, full-service forensic lab. Since that time, one-third of that lab has been shut down and converted into office space. Right now it houses administrative staff from the northwest region of the RCMP. Because of the reluctance to build the DNA database in Regina, we renovated an office in Ottawa to the tune of $50 million. My question is, what was the renovation cost of the Regina office to transfer it to office space? Also, how much is it going to cost to turn that forensic lab in Regina into the ballistics lab it is going to become? That's the first question.

    Secondly--and again this goes back to our Solicitor General--in answering Mr. Breitkreuz, you said it's almost like he has a personal vendetta against someone. Let me assure you that there is no personal vendetta by Mr. Breitkreuz or anyone else in our party and, I would suggest, even in the opposition.

    This is bad legislation. The cost-benefit analysis has never been given. We have no idea as to the benefit we're getting for its cost. That's what we want. If there is a cost-benefit analysis, can you table it?

    Let me give a quick illustration. I am opposed to the firearms registry. I believe in gun control, but not in a firearms registry that doesn't work. I talked to the registry and I said, “These are the firearms that I personally own”. They sent me my card. I called them back and I said, “There's a problem with this card”. Even though I don't agree with the registry, I have to conform to it. I'm a member of the opposition. I do not want someone saying that I'm doing something wrong. They looked at what they had done and they said, “Absolutely, we messed up”. They sent me a second card. There was the very same mistake on the second card. I called back again and I said, “I don't know if you guys are doing this intentionally or what”. They assured me that they weren't, and I believe them. I said, “You've sent me the wrong information on the card. Please send me a new card. Let me conform with the law”. They sent me the third card. It contained the same error. When I contacted them again, they said, “Don't keep all three cards. You have to keep destroying them. When we send out the wrong card, you must destroy the old card”.

    Basically, it's not working. Very simply, what we're asking is, can you show us the cost-benefit analysis that would confirm our allegation that this is not working?

  (1240)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's not an isolated case, by the way.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll turn to Bill for some of your questions.

    With regard to the forensic lab in Regina, I'll have to turn to Garry to deal with that one.

    I think I've outlined quite clearly that the objective here is to abide by the recommendations of the Auditor General and to increase turnaround times in getting DNA results. In fact, that has been happening.

    On your other point, I wouldn't want to leave the mistaken impression that sometimes the opposition doesn't do good research. I even look at the opposition's research sometimes to get some views. Although it's a little dated, it's interesting research most of the time.

    On the performance, I think the clearest picture on the gun registry and the Canada Firearms Centre doing its job really comes from NWEST, the national weapons enforcement support team. I'll give you the figures. In September alone they conducted 118 firearm traces, they seized 431 guns, they provided assistance with 12 search warrants, and they provided 28 training sessions. And that kind of activity is increasing. I've met with the NWEST people, and they believe that the registry is a huge asset in their ability to find illegal weapons and do the searches and the traces and work with the local law enforcement agencies to get the job done and make our streets safer.

    I'll turn to Garry on the forensic lab and to Bill on the other questions on firearms, Mr. Chair.

  (1245)  

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thanks, Minister.

    First, I want to respond to the issue of the allocation of space in the lab in Regina to the deputy commissioner in the region. When the lab in Regina was constructed, it was larger than the needs at that point dictated, because we wanted to ensure that we had appropriate space for different types of technology that might come in. There was some space on the main floor, which is currently used by the deputy commissioner in the region. It's an efficient use of space because it allows the building to be occupied and for the cost to be shared between the region and the lab program in terms of floor space. So I think it is an efficient use. It wasn't space that was being used by the lab in any event.

    With regard to the firearms centre of expertise being located at the Regina lab, it's really important that we take decisions that will minimize the cost overall of our services to the Canadian taxpayer and that we're as efficient as possible. When you look at the equipment and the scientists that are required, it simply is a good business decision to have that centralized in one area. Regina will be that centre of expertise for firearms. They will do a good job. Certainly, in terms of overall resourcing, when you look at the 2000-2001 numbers, there will be some additions there over the coming years. So I think it's actually a good news story.

    The Chair: Mr. Baker.

    Then we'll go to Mr. Lee.

    Mr. William Baker: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The discussion around the cost-benefit analysis has been well treated in previous meetings of different committees. It of course goes back to earlier discussions that took place in cabinet, on which I cannot comment and certainly was not part of. I can tell you, though, that we've been involved lately in widespread national consultations on the firearms program. We're getting some excellent suggestions about how we can make it work better and how we can reduce the cost. I think everybody is on the same page in that regard. Certainly we're hearing over and over again, in particular from police forces in this country as well as those interested in public safety, suicide prevention, and so on, that it's important we continue to follow through and deliver this in a cost-effective manner. They live the benefit on a daily basis.

    On the issue of your cards, I'm sorry, I can't provide an explanation for that. The centre endeavours to provide quality service. I do believe that the quality of service is much better than it once was. When we're dealing with two million gun owners and 6.6 million firearms in the system, there will be some errors. We will endeavour to do better. My apologies for your three cards.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I would like to ask the Solicitor General when I can expect to get my fourth card.

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll tell you what you can expect, Mr. Sorenson. We will look into it immediately after we leave this meeting. I like to see that the member from Crowfoot is satisfied in all things, including answers.

    The Chair: I'm going to go to Mr. Lee while Mr. Sorenson destroys his first three cards.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): You should be careful that you don't get arrested for improperly recycling the plastic.

    My question is for the Solicitor General and perhaps Deputy Commissioner Loeppky. After 9/11 the RCMP was asked by Canadians to engage in what can be called a counter-terrorism effort. Since there have been no prosecutions here and no incidents, clearly what the RCMP will be doing is gathering counter-terrorism intelligence. This is precisely what CSIS has been doing for its 20 years, albeit with safeguards, such as the Inspector General and Federal Court warrants, a whole regime of protection and safeguards for Canadians. To complicate things, the RCMP now engages in this counter-terrorism intelligence gathering with local police forces through their INSETs. I am concerned about who manages the data and who protects it, because the safeguards that are there with CSIS are not there, statutory and procedural. They're simply not there. The RCMP develops their own indices, files, and computer data bank with this information. They have MOUs with Canadian agencies--federal, provincial, and municipal--and foreign agencies--U.S., European, and around the world. How can the RCMP assure us here today, speaking for Canadians, that this information is safeguarded and that it's accurate? How do we know it's even accurate enough to be used and shared with other agencies? I have a serious concern about this.

  (1250)  

    Hon. Wayne Easter: I'll turn to the deputy commissioner, Derek.

    A number of safeguards are already in place, such as the CPC, the Auditor General, the mandate letters from the Solicitor General, ministerial directives, etc. CSIS has the SIRC review body, which is somewhat different from the review process for the RCMP. We're always looking at ways of making sure that we have the best oversight bodies for the various organizations and their responsibilities.

    With that, I'll turn to Garry to answer your question in a more technical manner.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: Thank you very much.

    I certainly appreciate the question.

    It's important to differentiate between the role of CSIS in terms of their collection of intelligence information on groups that pose a threat to the security of Canada, such as linkages, ideology, those types of things, and our mandate under the Security Offences Act, which is to pursue criminal investigations of groups that pose a threat to the security of Canada. We're focused on criminal investigations, which is quite different. The roles are complementary in my view. CSIS and the RCMP enjoy an excellent working relationship. Post-9/11 we have developed integrated national security enforcement teams. Those teams include ourselves and other partners, including CSIS, which actually work in a very hand-in-hand way. When we look at the relationship between CSIS and ourselves, I need to be very clear that's an excellent relationship. We have exchange programs in place on a permanent basis to ensure that there's no overlap of mandate. I respect their role in terms of being the service that is tasked with national security intelligence, while our role is criminal investigation of groups that are involved in activity that poses a threat to the security of Canada.

    Post-9/11, with the new legislation that has been drafted, in addition to what the minister said, there are review mechanisms within that legislation, Bill C-36 and Bill C-24. There's the tabling of documents in the House, and there are annual reports required in terms of the use of that legislation.

    We're certainly sensitive, and we're also very aware of the various mandates and respectful of those.

    The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

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

    Just to be certain that the decision has not been made, can you tell me whether the decision will be made before the election, so that it is not some sort of obfuscation, the decision having been made, and that we are just waiting after the election to close the stations? Will a decision be made before the election? That is my first question.

    On the issue of firearms, you know how important this is for Quebec, you know that we dearly want this registry. However, we know as well that there is still about one-third of firearms that are not registered. You are losing the support of the people, even in Quebec, and I believe that it would be a serious mistake, because if, just because it has been badly managed, you are starting to lose the support of the people who do want this registry... As we know, it has been a fiasco.

    Why not having a detailed breakdown and putting completely on the table this amount of $800 million or almost $1 billion, so that we can show that the cost will be reduced, that the system will work and that the registry will be a good asset. It is indeed important to have this registry, but if the rate of return is not satisfying, or the cost benefit ratio is too low... You said that you had commissioned an internal report, but it is not a detailed report. The people want to know and that is the reason why we are requesting a public inquiry, if need be. Even without an inquiry, if you give us the detailed figures, the people will be happy and we will be able to give them all the information. The people are asking us for information, but we don't have any.

    Why not making public a really detailed breakdown showing where all this money has gone: advertising, the names of peoples who received contracts, etc. Publish an update of all this and the people will probably end up regaining confidence in your registry.

  (1255)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, monsieur Lanctôt.

    Mr. Minister.

    Then we'll go to Mr. Mark, and that will be it.

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

    I'll ask the deputy commissioner to come in on C Division again.

    I really can't tell you when a final decision will be made. As I indicated, consultations have been going on for some time. A number of studies have been done, and consultations are still going on. So I can't answer what is really a hypothetical question.

    On the gun registry and the registrations in Quebec, we stuck by the deadline of June 30, that people should be registered by that date. We've continued to take registrations. Roughly 1,000 to 1,500 registrations are still coming in each week. I think we've shown that it's not our intent to go out there and make criminals out of legitimate gun owners. What we want them to do and what we're encouraging them to do is to register and come into the system. We'll continue to make best efforts to improve the transparency and reliability of the system on a number of fronts. As Mr. Baker indicated, a number of consultations took place this fall looking at some of the details to make sure that it's user friendly, if I can use that term. We'll continue to do that. I want to encourage people to continue to come into the system. I think that way the system will work more effectively in terms of the bottom line interest, which is public safety.

    On C Division, I'll turn it over to Garry.

    D/Commr Garry Loeppky: I want to clarify that when we look at alignment, we look at more effective service. We base those decisions on efficiency and service effectiveness in consultation with the communities and the clients we serve and obviously with the objective of excellence in delivering on our strategic priorities of organized crime, terrorism, youth, and aboriginal communities. No specific date has been set. I want to clarify that we don't judge these decisions by when there might be an election. These decisions are based on efficiency and effectiveness of service. It's really important that we provide a service that reflects that.

    The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Mark for the last question.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Many provinces and territories are opposed to the long gun registry. They've said that they refuse to prosecute in provincial court.

    How many cases have been prosecuted in Federal Court with regard to the breach of the long gun registry, whether it's possession of certificates or registration?

    Mr. William Baker: To my knowledge, there have not been any prosecutions in that regard. Often, of course, when there are firearms related matters, they are connected with other criminal behaviour and they're packaged together. We do have what we call reference hearings in Federal Court. This is when someone wishes to challenge the decision of a firearms officer, and those are quite routine.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, officials, and members of the committee.

    I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving week in their riding

    The meeting is adjourned.