Government Operations Committee on May 30th, 2006

[William Baker]

If I may, the Auditor General pointed out in an earlier response her assessment of some of the reasons why costs—particularly with IT systems, which have been a key cost driver.... First of all, the assumptions have clearly changed. For instance, we have eliminated the fees, by and large; the registration transfer, and licensing fees now—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Even with the fees, we're only at 10 points--10%--of revenues to expenses.

[William Baker]

That's today, but I believe that in the early days there was an assumption that at a certain level of revenues there would be a considerable offset.

If I might just add to the list of reasons given by the Auditor General, I think--and I can relate from previous committee meetings--that previous administrations have acknowledged that to build a national licensing and registration system was uncharted territory. There is nothing like it in the country, and it had to be built from the ground up. I think most people would acknowledge today that the assumptions as to what it would cost were ambitious. In hindsight, we can now look back and say that in the business case, some of the parameters may well have changed, but in fairness that's done with an awful lot of experience, with 10 years of hindsight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Van Kesteren, you may have a very short point.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a quick question, Mr. Baker. We hear a lot about police accessing the registry. Do you have actual figures as to how much of that access is in regard to firearms and how much is in regard to just checking a driver's licence or something of that nature?

[William Baker]

I don't know if I have a precise answer to that question. I can tell you that in response to a question a couple of years ago, we did want to make sure that accesses to the Canadian Firearms Registry Online by police were in fact being done by police, and they are. A very small number aren't made by police officers--

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Excuse me; I'm sorry. My question is this: do police use it more to check drivers' licences, or do they use it more to check registered firearms?

[William Baker]

My understanding is that one of the primary uses--and I can't talk about percentages--occurs when a police officer goes to a particular dwelling house and looks to see if there are firearms registered to the owner or occupant of the dwelling house. It is related to firearms, to the best of my knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

I'm going to allow two very short interventions and I'm going to ask Madame Thibault if she minds debating her motion on Thursday. Maybe we'll do that first on Thursday, instead of--

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'd like it to be done today, Madam Chair; otherwise it will be postponed until the end of June and will no longer be relevant. I have four comments to make, and I'll be very brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Bien.

Do the last two questioners want to just leave it? The public accounts committee is coming in at 11 o'clock and they have the same things.

Okay, we will have one short question from Mr. Bonin and one short one from Mr. Kramp.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I'll speak quickly.

The answer to Mr. Wallace is that it was to be $80 million, recouperable in 14 years with the fees. That's how it started.

We talk about review and estimates. These documents--we get many of these--are produced by accountants. I hire an accountant to do my taxes because it's become too complicated. I don't have the patience, and it's too complicated. So we need more information. The Auditor General mentions that committees don't put in the time they should. I guess we don't put in the time. There's no way I went through this book, and if anyone around this table claims they have, they have time to waste.

So we need information, and I'm going to ask Mr. Sims, the deputy minister, to see if his department can produce for us. Some talk about a billion-dollar boondoggle; I've been responding to my constituents and trying to explain that, but I don't have the figures. You have them buried somewhere.

Did you cost the delays? Did you cost the court cases by the provinces? Did you cost the fees that were to be in place, but are not in place? Every time we transfer a firearm, it should have been $25. It's free. Is that costed?

There is the overtime. Clubs who said not to register until December 31 bogged down and disrupted the computer, and there was lots of overtime. There is the rest--the advertising, because of the other advertising campaigns.... I would like a sheet at least showing me those costs, and then the $1 billion may become $200 million. It's still too much, but it's not as offensive as $1 billion.

You see, Auditor General--Madame Fraser--the reason we don't spend that much time on these figures is they're too damn--and I use the word--complicated. We are lay people. Some politicians like to have people think they know everything, but I don't, and I need help. If you're not going to give me the information, we will come back and criticize the ones who produced the vague information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Baker, I have a very simple question. There are hundreds of thousands of offences committed with firearms every year. How many offences are committed with registered firearms?

[William Baker]

I can't give you a precise statistic. I can tell you, to the best of my knowledge, the numbers of registered firearms used in offences are relatively small. I think we should bear in mind, though, that the requirement to register is relatively new, so there are still a number of guns in circulation that have never gone through the registration process.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Might I suggest that it's almost infinitesimal? The fact remains that criminals don't walk up to a gun rack and say, I think I'll steal that gun rack, but I wonder if it's registered or not.

[William Baker]

I don't disagree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

If you'll excuse us for one minute before we end the committee, we have a very simple motion that Madame Thibault has put forward after giving notice. I think it should be voted on, if we can, right away.

Madame Thibault.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I wanted to say the following about my motion.

Someone asked what two days was. We were supposed to debate my motion at a meeting, but I preferred that we spend that time on Ms. Nash's motion. Then, by a common accord, the May 18 meeting was cancelled. Now I figure that, at this rate, we still won't have voted by August. So I'm proposing the following motion:

That this Committee calls on the Government to immediately proclaim An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.

Even though Bill C-2 amends the act, it must be proclaimed in force at some point, despite the fact that the government seems to want to proceed through a kind of comprehensive offer. This proclamation is important to the extent that all parties worked very hard, in a non-partisan manner, in 2005 so that an acceptable act — and I don't mean a perfect act here — would ensure protection for whistleblowers.

Currently, more than 86,000 government employees are not protected. Members of the Public Service Alliance are protected, but members of other unions are not. The fact that 86,000 people are still not protected from potential reprisals is not a negligible fact.

Lastly, as regards the application of its accountability plan, the government says it wants to act quickly. In my view, a very important part of that plan concerns protection for whistleblowers. We have the opportunity right now to protect those people. As I said earlier, we worked seriously last year. I'm convinced that, by showing the same serious-mindedness, we can make a decision today and recommend that the government proclaim this act in force immediately. We're saying, and rightly so, that we have the highest respect for these people. So they must be protected from potential reprisals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with the intent of the motion; I don't think there's any difficulty with that. There's no doubt that the motion is well intentioned to deal with the situation regarding whistle-blowers. The difficulty I have, of course, is the fact that we already have legislation in process. We have legislation in process, and to just start cherry-picking pieces out of each bill takes away from the intent of the original bill that is before the committee right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No, Mr. Kramp, I think you misunderstand this. All that she is asking is that they put into law the piece of legislation that was passed, because it will have to be put into law to be amended. It's passed, and they're now going to amend it without actually having enacted the final point. That's what this is about.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I understand that, but what I don't understand is the fact that this is already before committee. It's already before another committee in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Not this legislation that she's talking about.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Bill C-2 is still...[Inaudible--Editor]...of Bill C-11.