Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Actually I asked two questions. That is all.

It’s rather strange that those people use up all the time we're given to make speeches that have absolutely nothing to do with the questions being asked. It’s just as if they didn’t want to answer the actual questions we ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You will have an opportunity to address that in the next round.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question, but if it is an uncomfortable policy question, then you can suggest that I ask the minister or someone else.

Just for clarification, under Bill C-10—there was a little discussion on that earlier when the minister was here—my understanding is that for the mandatory minimum component, long guns would be excluded from that proposition. Is that your understanding?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Again, I would defer that one to the minister.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The scenario that has been painted by others suggests that if a criminal goes in to hold up a store and has an unloaded handgun and comes out and is caught, there would be a mandatory minimum applicable under the legislation in front of us, but if the same person went in with an unloaded long gun and came out, they wouldn't have it. I have concerns for your officers and how they deal with that, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Anyhow, I'm now going to turn to prevention. There's a lot of money coming in to the RCMP, so I'd like to talk a little about prevention. Under the estimates, I turn to community safety and partnerships. It appears to me that there is a significant decrease when we look at the item on page 22-5:

Payments to the provinces, territories, municipalities, Indian band councils and recognized authorities representing Indians on reserve, Indian communities on Crown land and Inuit communities, for the First Nations Policing Program

There's a significant decrease. Is that due to transfers or just lack of demand? What's happening there?

[John Brunet]

It's the same sort of topic that Monsieur Ménard was addressing. The support that public safety provides to first nations policing is in concert with the provinces. It's a cautionary program, for which we pay 52% of the costs of policing first nations communities and the provinces pay 48%. In the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, a lot of those agreements are struck directly with first nations communities. The contribution would go to the first nations community, which might have their own police force or subcontract with the Sûreté du Québec or the OPP to provide those services.

In other parts of Canada, where the RCMP provide the local policing force, the agreement between us and the province is to have the RCMP provide that first-nations-related policing to that community on behalf of the community, funded by us and the province. The difficulty comes in because of the Financial Administration Act. In other parts of the country there would be a contribution to the first nation community, which then pays for the police force. In this situation, though, we provide the money to the RCMP.

That funding is simply a transfer. Previously it was shown as contribution funding. In this year's main estimates, it is shown under the operating expenses of that program rather than the contribution program itself. The program funding envelope has not been reduced, but the split between contribution dollars and operating dollars has changed.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Further down the page is “Contributions in support of the Safer Communities Initiative”. That has gone up significantly in terms of the two columns, between the estimates 2005-06 and 2006-07. I'm very concerned about the balance between enforcement and looking at investments in prevention. I'm wondering what I can glean from this one line item. Is that a prevention program? Is that budget line about prevention? What is a descriptor for “Safer Communities Initiative”?

[John Brunet]

It is about prevention. The acronym is about crime prevention through social development. Again, that's a contribution program where the funding is provided to local communities, local groups, or provincial groups to work with disadvantaged women, youth, youth at risk, youth gangs, etc., to try to prevent criminals from developing in the future. So it's a social action program where we work in concert with provinces and with local communities to try to develop programs that will assist individuals so they don't go down the path of criminal activity.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

If I may, just very quickly, I have a very concrete question. In my community there are a number of initiatives the community wants to put together. Where would they go if they wanted to access money for prevention like this?

[John Brunet]

The first place would be our website, where we describe the program in detail, but we also work very actively with the Boys and Girls Clubs, the YMCA, and other social action groups. So there's a distribution of individuals who work for this program, spread across the country, who we are continually working with at the local level to help them develop their capacity and develop projects to reduce crime, targeted to individual communities and districts and areas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dewar, at the beginning you made a statement. I just need some clarification. Where does that information come from?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's a scenario that has been painted to me. I can get that for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

On the differential?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes. That's an opinion I was given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Oh, that's an opinion and not a factual statement?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

No, it's an opinion; that's how I painted it. I gave a scenario and wasn't suggesting—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Oh, it sounded like this was.... I needed to know that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Well, the law is not in place, so anything is speculation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I wanted to try to clarify one issue, and then I'll share my time with Mr. Hawn.

Going back, I think my friend Mr. Holland said the training the CBSA would be getting is “training light”. I think we need to clarify the process here. The RCMP will train the trainers, who will then be trained to the standard of the RCMP.

Where will that training take place? If you know, would it take place at RCMP Depot, is my question?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

It would either be at our training facility in Regina or at our Connaught Range here in Ottawa.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

So to train the CBSA people across the country at the first level, typically the RCMP would do that training at Depot as recruits come in. Would that be accurate?

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

In our training program in Regina we don't simply introduce members to force and the use of firearms and then leave them alone. Every officer who carries a firearm has to go through an annual training program--

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I understand that. I think I maybe misdirected my question.

When RCMP members join the force, they go through the use of force training, not the firearms but the use of force training, as a recruit at Depot. Then after that there are the annual requalifications, and so on. But to bring the CBSA people to that same level would require them to go to Depot.

[D/Commr Peter Martin]

Yes, it could be done at Regina, or it could also be done here at our range. Honestly, I'm not up on the details of that program. I understand some of it is still under discussion and negotiation. I can get back to you about what the plans are.