Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In that case, it's quite obvious that after some of the more recent events, such as the tragedy at Dawson, we need to revisit the idea of whether or not the registry should be scrapped, or of how we can tighten some of the aspects of the registry. It was noted earlier that police chiefs are of the same opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you're almost out of time.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like to reiterate, once again, that most of the police forces across the country are supporters of this registry and for very good reason. I'm glad that on the tail end of the tragedy that occurred in Dawson the registry was effective in keeping a potentially similar case from taking place in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Mr. Sweet, you have five minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions first for Mr. Martin.

You were talking about the CPIC check, when an officer does a 28 and 29 and asks for wants or warrants. Really the police department could say that every CPIC check gets an automatic registry hit. Is that correct? Is that their policy?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

No.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

It's according to their policy, right?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Yes, we've got to think about capacity. What we would like to do is build in the facility for automatic checking. We're going to be looking at that in the future, so that it will become a seamless operation. Again, we have to deal with the issues and take care of them first. Let's walk before we run.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

The real focus now is efficiency, right?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Right.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

We're trying to get an infrastructure that will always be in place rather than continuing to spend lots of money building a separate infrastructure and using that. When a police officer accessed it, would there be any less efficiency or any less safety if the access was to a licensing system or a separate registry?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

I don't understand.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Right now you're streamlining that into one system that already has an infrastructure. Is that correct?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

We're linking systems together so that one query would check in a number of places.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Again, we're talking about creating some efficiencies as well as some increased quality in the data.

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Right.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I had a question, Mr. Baker. I don't know if this pre-dates you or not. Sections 4.58 and 4.59 of the Auditor General's report state that as far back as 1994 there were concerns about flawed data. We've got two systems now, and I understand we're not using CFIS II, so we're back to one. Do you know why we didn't just start there with validating some of that data and beginning to improve it prior to moving onto new infrastructure?

[William Baker]

I think there are two issues: one was the mechanisms that were in place to verify the data that came in, and secondly, the information system that was used. They are separate in many respects.

I can say that when one looks at the history of the program, in particular, the deadline for registering firearms, which was December 31, 2002--and of course there were a few extension periods built in after that--the centre received millions of registration applications in a brief period of time. This period actually predated my arrival, but I was living the tail end of it.

Prior to my arrival, a decision was made not to do extraordinary validation of that information because our concern was about getting a registration certificate in the hands of the firearms owner so they could prove that they complied with the Firearms Act. In order to ensure the quality of the data, what we did--and I don't know if this is still the practice--is that every time that firearm changed hands, we would then use the occasion of the transfer to verify the information and ensure that the database was correct. We do not see it as administratively feasible to contact existing firearms owners and try to verify the data on the firearms that are in the possession of two million Canadians. Because of the natural turnover of firearms, that was the approach that was taken.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to building CFIS II, whose decision was that to leave number one and go on to number two?

[William Baker]

The decision goes back to roughly the year 2000. The first system was built at the outset of the Firearms Act, around 1995. It was judged by previous management that there were some limitations to the system--for instance, it was using some older technologies and approaches.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but you know there's limited time.

What I'm trying to get at is that we seem to have come full circle. There was this flawed decision to build a huge registry. I'm thankful that we got something from the billion dollars; you said there was some good work done. Now we're back to the police managing it with a good infrastructure that's well matured, and I understand the verification is ramping up very quickly. I'm just wondering, was there no push back by the public service on whoever was going ahead with this to say there's already an infrastructure for licensing and that we can enhance that? How did this end up even beginning and then ballooning into a billion dollars? Do you have any kind of knowledge around that?

[William Baker]

The decisions to proceed with a second information system predate my time as commissioner. I can tell you--and there's certain evidence of that in the Auditor General's report--that at various times we stepped back and tried to assess whether this was still a wise investment decision for government. On balance, it was concluded by the Treasury Board during my time to continue the development of CFIS II.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm wondering if Mr. Martin has any history from the inception of this.

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Sorry, I don't have any history on that. We got involved in this in May. We were using CFIS I at the time, and the staff we had could maintain CFIS I. There are negotiations around what's going to happen with CFIS II.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Martin, and then Mr. Laforest, cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.