Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2006

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

The only other question I have, Chair, is for the minister. I think we've been a long time without a contract with the prison guards. I understand that perhaps that has been completed.

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

Great steps have been made, yes. I'll ask the commissioner to comment on the specifics, but we've been over four years without a contract, which is untenable.

Those officers who serve in our correctional facilities have an incredible job to do. I've visited the facilities, spent time there--visiting--and I will continue to do that. There are pressures in that vocation that are unique to any other profession. It's quite incredible to see.

We really felt that four years was just too long to have elements related to, for instance, their early retirement and also to have occupational elements not addressed. I was pleased that our Treasury Board president and others--and I congratulate the commissioner also for his input--and from those representing the union.... There was a good meeting of the minds, and it appears as though a resolution has been achieved.

I'll ask the commissioner if he wants to comment any further on that.

[Keith Coulter]

There isn't much more to add, really, because we have to respect the process. There's a tentative agreement. As we speak, the union leadership is out briefing the rank-and-file members. There'll be a vote later this month.

From my perspective, this was an issue that we absolutely had to get past as an organization. I started nine months ago, so we're three years and three months into this. Four years, the minister said, is too long. From my perspective, the best part of the tentative agreement, really, of all the things that are in it--and it's been publicly announced--is that the new contract would run until 2010. This would give our organization a chance to regroup, to get labour management relations in absolutely the best possible zone, and not have to go into another round of collective bargaining right away.

I have all my fingers and toes crossed that this is it and that we'll go by this problem, because as an organization we certainly have to move beyond it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Ms. Kadis.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the same line of discussion and questioning in terms of the registry and the issue of reliability of information, in our previous session with the Auditor General and former firearms commissioner, it was mentioned that approximately 7,000 affidavits have been provided by the registry to support prosecution of firearms in court proceedings. This, with other information, obviously very strong passionate information from our Canadian chief of police, and Chief Armand La Barge, the president of the Ontario chiefs of police, seems to be quite compelling in terms of being reliable, highly useful, and an integral part of their approach to enhancing safety in the community and the country.

I'd just like to get some comment on that, knowing there is no price on safety. Obviously, I'm sure we agree that there is no price on individual safety.

On this issue of reliability, I find it's very much at odds with other information. I'm not yet able to see the reconciliation of that, because I understand that essentially your government wants to kill the gun registry based on finances. We've shown that on finances there isn't great gains, and yet there is so much information that flies in the face of dismantling it.

I would ask that you comment on that in terms of the reliability of information and the usage of this information.

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

Thanks.

First--and I'm not suggesting your one phrase was not well intended, your comments are all well intended, and I take it that way--we are not in fact killing the gun registry. The firearms registry will be alive and well, other than the requirement to register unrestricted long guns and the requirement to continue to renew licensing. That's the only portion we're talking about.

To be honest, we've had mixed reaction from the heads of policing agencies. I don't know if I have the quotes with me, but I could send them to you. You've probably seen them; we quote them in question period from time to time. Some chiefs and others across the country are saying, good, we're glad that the long gun registry portion is being taken out of the loop; it's saves us a lot of frustration and helps us to really focus in terms of gun crime. Others have said that they wish we would leave it in place. Many of the rank-and-file frontline officers, through their various associations, have also expressed great relief that the long gun registry portion will eventually be eliminated so they can concentrate on the handguns and on restrictive and prohibitive firearms.

I guess the debate will just continue in terms of reliability of the information. It's not only the reliability of the information, but there are tens of thousands who have been unable to effectively register their long guns either because of the system not working properly or rule changes. As I think the member knows, the first amnesty that went into place, because of the inability of the system itself to be able to properly register all the information, was in 1996 or 1997. There have been a total of eight amnesty provisions, allowing more time for people to comply with the law. A law simply cannot be seen as effective if you're asking people to do something where a huge percentage of them find it virtually impossible. And the main problem has to do with the registering of the long guns. That was why it was taken out.

Affidavits will continue to be available for measuring crime with firearms. We really think that with the ability of officers now, especially those on the street and front lines being able to focus on the things they need to focus on, that's going to be a great advancement. We think you're going to see reduced crime with firearms. There will be more crime prevention programs, more resources for crime prevention, and more officers on the street. Those are the things that really go to reducing firearms.

So, Ms. Kadis--somewhat similar to my response to your colleague when we were talking about reliability of data--time will tell just how unreliable it was. Those were the comments of the Auditor General in some areas. The reliability data was questionable. A program that's not functioning well needs to be moved to the side and the resources put to true protection of our citizens and true reduction of crime with guns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Monsieur Ménard.

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

Minister, there has been a lot of talk about savings through the amnesty. As a result, I imagine that the amnesty was taken into account when the figures provided here were prepared. If we look at the section for the Canadian Firearms Centre, we see under "Registration, licensing and supporting infrastructure," that you expect to spend some $78,270,000 over the next year, whereas last year this function cost $82,284,000. So there are savings of $4,014,000. Does that correspond to the amount that you expect to save?

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

Yes, but when you see the supplementary estimates this fall, you will see the difference. You will see the $10 million. Not all of that money is reflected here.

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

So it is clear but not reliable. Can you tell me whether the information is both clear and reliable somewhere in these documents?

[Suzanne Hurtubise, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

The estimates were prepared before the government's announcement. Consequently, the $10 million reduction will be reflected in the supplementary estimates which will be tabled by the government in the fall.

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

Is it really a reduction of $10 million?

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

Yes, Mr. Ménard, there will be a further $10 million reduction. The amount for this year, which is $83,595,000, will be reduced by $10 million, and this will appear in the estimates this autumn, in accordance with the government's commitment.

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

We will see that when we get there.

On the other hand, I would like to know how the invoice for the RCMP services is drawn up for provinces who have no provincial police, which means all provinces except Quebec and Ontario.

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

The commissioner can give a more precise answer, but I can tell you that there are contracts. Most contracts will be renewed in 2012, but we will start negotiations with the provinces in 2007.

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

I would like to know on what principles you base the amount that a province must pay. How do you calculate it?

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

According to the agreement reached by the federal government and the provinces or territories, the principle requires provinces and territories to pay 70 per cent of the cost while the federal government pays 30 per cent. There are also contracts with municipalities. If a municipality has more than 15,000 citizens, the agreement requires that the municipality pay 90 per cent and the government 10 per cent of the costs incurred by police services in general. Those are the basic principles.

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

All right. This has answered my second question, which was about the proportion, if it was other than 100 per cent.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

There's only one municipality that pays 100 per cent of these costs, which is Moncton, New Brunswick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Moving to Mr. Comartin, do you have a question?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Hurtubise, we heard from Mr. Baker—and I don't know if it was at this committee, because he was in front of another one I was at—but the $10 million savings had already been identified by the Canada Firearms Centre, and it had nothing to do with any savings from stripping out the long gun registry. Is that correct?

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

I don't want to speak for Mr. Baker, but my understanding is that at the request of the government there was an examination of the expenditures of the Firearms Centre and a reduction in the budget. Through the analysis that Mr. Baker and his management team did, savings were found, and they will be reflected in the budget of the Firearms Centre in the supplementary budgets tabled in the fall.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Ms. Hurtubise, that doesn't answer my question.

That $10 million in savings has nothing to do with reducing the registration of long guns. There are going to be some additional savings if that happens, but the $10 million has already been saved. It has nothing to do with the long gun registry savings.

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

My understanding is the $10 million will happen no matter what, Mr. Comartin, and there may be additional savings.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you.