Public Safety Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I understand.

Also, it was an interesting suggestion about a cap. What's your suggestion on what would happen if the Firearms Centre came back and said they had to exceed the cap? What would be the remedial--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Like anyone, we'd ask why. I'm from Missouri, show me, and I'd want to know why. We were very critical, no mistake here, about the costs and who was in charge, etc., but I believe in the concept, and I think most Canadians do. You mentioned to improve it. So if we hear that it's going over $25 million, and my understanding is that it hasn't for that component, I'd want to know why and I'd want to have those people held accountable. How can we make sure that this cost doesn't go over $25 million?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thanks for that suggestion. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the government side.

Mr. MacKenzie, for seven minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the members for being here today.

I fail to understand the reasoning of my friends opposite when they talk about firearms. There's some sort of view that if you register a gun, it won't be used, and that's exactly wrong, and that's why the system didn't work and can't work.

I would like to look at some other areas, although related to firearms. There is $101 million in the budget, going forward, for arming border guards, and I know that a member opposite, who is not here, called border guards “wimps” because they walked off the job when they were threatened by people coming from south of the border with firearms.

I'm wondering if you could give us an update on where we are on arming the border guards.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

You're quite right in talking about the amount that's being directed towards arming our border officers. Right now, the applications have gone out for those within the operation who want to become trainers themselves. We'll be using the RCMP to do the initial training. The RCMP will then train the trainers, and they will work through the system.

By the way, there were 324 people within the CBSA component who actually applied to become trainers, which was, I thought, a very healthy response. Obviously, there won't be 324 trainers--there will be a lot fewer than that--but they'll be able to pick from that group. Their estimation is that the first officers will be trained and ready to serve by July or August of this coming year. There will be up to 300 available and ready to be on site. Following that, there will be training at the rate of about 800 per year, and then if you allow for natural attrition to take place, it will probably net out to something between 625 and 650 per year after that.

There have been different speculations in terms of how long it will take to get everybody trained, and the process itself could be completed--about 4,800 officers--in about six years. But right now it's projected that the funding component, and this is an expensive thing to do, will be coming forward by so much per year for 10 years.

Looking at the experience in other jurisdictions.... When the United States started their training , if we look at how long it took them, we're about on the same timelines. So 300 by July or August, and those will be apportioned to the areas where the greatest need is, and then it will be at the rate of about 800 or so per year, and then you have to allow for some attrition.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay. Now, I understand there's been additional funding in the supplementary estimates. Can you give us some information concerning that additional funding?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I can.

In terms of the supplementary estimates, I'll go through it quickly, because there may be some specific ones.

In terms of the RCMP itself, under vote 61, operating expenditures, excluding those for registration activities and functions: $38,000,000.

In terms of vote 62--again, this is the Canada Firearms Centre--operating expenses for registration activities and functions: $10,000,000.

Looking at the Canadian Border Service Agencies, vote number 10a, this would authorize the transfer of $373,500 from Citizenship and Immigration and $689,995 from National Defence. There are contributions to employee benefits under CSIS of $35,266,000.

For the Correctional Services, under Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service, there will be another transfer of $39,040.

I think those are the main ones in front of me right now, Mr. Chairman.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

I think something of interest to a lot of Canadians is where we are with the western hemisphere travel initiative with the Americans. Does that involve expenditures on behalf of your department?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

This has been quite a journey in terms of addressing something the American Congress put in place; this wasn't from their administration. As members around the committee table will know, about four years ago there was a law passed that everybody going into the United States, by a certain time period, would have to have a passport. That included Americans returning to the United States. The timelines originally on the table suggested that by January 1 of 2007, all people flying in or coming in by ship or boat were going to have to have a passport and that by January 1, 2008, everybody coming in at a land border was going to have to have a passport.

We were very concerned. We've done a number of studies on this. Not only do we think this will discourage travel from Canada into the United States, but we are even more concerned that this will dampen the desire of people wanting to come from the United States into Canada. Americans appear to be more averse to getting passports than Canadians. Just over 20% of Americans have passports and almost 40% of Canadians. There's also the cost that goes with that.

From the time Prime Minister Harper first met with President Bush and his Mexican counterpart at the Cancun meeting, this was the first item on the agenda. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, this will have a very negative effect on our economy. It's not just the economy, strictly speaking, but even the social economy: the number of people who travel across the border for family reasons, friendship reasons; sports teams, hockey teams, soccer teams. There's a host of things we believe will be unanticipated consequences of that legislation.

We've made achievements. We have an agreement from the Americans that alternative documents will be acceptable. We're just defining what those will be. We've also been successful in having the implementation date pushed back; so far, it's about a year and a half.

I just want to say to members here, and any Canadians who are listening, that by January 8 of this year, 2007, if you are flying into the United States or you're coming in by ship, you have to have a passport. With respect to ferry traffic at the normal points, they'll let you in with two pieces of ID. So if you're flying or coming in by ship, get your passport. With the land ports, you have about another year and a half. We're working on alternatives there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

This is the second round, and these are five-minute rounds.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say this about a kind of throwaway remark you made, but I think it needs to be addressed.

You asked why the Liberals are not supporting mandatory minimums. I have to say this is a misrepresentation of the historical record, and indeed of the contemporary record. There are more mandatory minimums for gun-related crimes in the Criminal Code, some 20, than for any other crime except murder. Those mandatory minimums were introduced by the Liberal government some 10 years ago when the opposition, your party in its predecessor form, actually opposed them.

In November 2005, following a meeting of federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice, as the Minister of Justice at the time, upon the unanimous recommendation of those ministers, I introduced a comprehensive legislative package that included targeted mandatory minimums in the matters of smuggling, trafficking, and use of a loaded weapon in a public place.

The issue, therefore, is not having mandatory minimums or not. The issue is why your government has introduced a range of mandatory minimums of such scope and excess, including mandatory minimums, for some, of 10 years, when, number one, all the evidence has shown that such mandatory minimums neither are a deterrent nor are effective; when the very evidence relied upon by the Minister of Justice to support them—that is to say, evidence from the states of Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York, as examples—demonstrated the exact opposite of what the minister claimed; when they have a disproportionate impact on aboriginal people; and when experts have concluded that such mandatory minimums are wrong-headed as a matter of policy and suspect as a matter of law.

It is not a question that we did not support mandatory minimums. We supported those we felt were effective as a matter of policy and not suspect as a matter of law. To turn it the other way around, why is your government introducing such mandatory minimums when the evidence demonstrates otherwise?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Well, Mr. Chairman, this is why we have Parliament and why we have debate. The member just talked about certain amendments they put in requiring some mandatory penalties that they thought were effective. Well, that's what debate is all about.

In fact, their implementations were found not to be effective. When you have, Mr. Chairman, handgun crime going up, when you have killings and aggravated assaults with handguns in the city of Toronto on the increase, these clearly show that what they had done related to gun crime was not working. In our view, it was not working.

Now, if they want to interpret those particular areas where you're seeing an increase in gun activity as a decrease, well, that's what Parliament's about. You can say that two and two is five and you can debate that if you want. That's what we do.

Just allow me to finish. You started; let me finish.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I think the real issue is—

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

No, I have to finish. You had your time, with respect, and I listened carefully.

With respect to Bill C-10, which introduced a number of measures that we think—and this is a debate—will serve to reduce crime with firearms, three of the four Liberals present chose not to support it, and that's certainly their right. That's why I say, when we want to put a focus on crime with firearms, I find it curious that they give the appearance of wanting to have a focus on something else.

Now, on the anecdotal side—and anecdotal evidence has to be taken as such, and for security reasons I can only give some information here—our policing forces have told me that in one very densely populated area of our country, and I'd prefer not to say which, both their human and their listening-in intelligence on things that go on shows, from the street, that when we tabled Bill C-10 there was considerable discussion among those who choose criminal activity, and especially those who operate in the area of trafficking in firearms, that we were getting tough, that mandatory jail was probably going to be the result if they were apprehended, and that they were going to move their focus of business.

Now, I don't know what they're going into. I hope it's legal business—I doubt it is—but we're hearing anecdotally that just tabling and moving this legislation through is having an impact on the street. We hope that's true, and time will tell.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have five seconds left.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I just want to say that my whole point in asking the question was, number one, to correct the misrepresentation you made that we did not support mandatory minimums, which was another attempt to say the Liberals are soft on crime. It was a political statement and not an evidentiary-based statement, and, number two, to say that on evidentiary-based terms the evidence is the exact opposite to that which your government invoked for purposes of relying upon the merits of your legislation. Therefore, I say in that sense the legislation that you introduced regarding mandatory minimums was ideologically driven and not evidence-based.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Thank you.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I'll just close by saying that I have not used the phrase “Liberals are soft on crime”. I've not used that at all today. I'm trying to keep this at a respectful level. It's the member just now who talked about that, and, as a fact, as a matter of hard evidence, Mr. Chairman--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order, please.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

--the record is very clear. When we tabled Bill C-10 in the House of Commons and asked for support for mandatory sentences on crime with firearms, three of the four Liberals present didn't support it. That's all I said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

Mr. Ménard--

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That does not mean we did not support parts of it--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order, please. Mr. Cotler, your time is up. A little bit of respect, please.

Monsieur Ménard.

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

My question is for Mr. Martin.

You are here to represent the RCMP. You just heard the minister say that it was up to the RCMP to decide what it would do with the registration of long guns that are already in the system. Can you tell us, please?