Public Safety Committee on June 7th, 2006

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

I'll ask either the director of CSIS or the RCMP commissioner to reflect more specifically. I can tell you that in general we all know there's been a concern in the past ten or fifteen years about information sharing and operational sharing between the two agencies. I was assured by both of these gentlemen and their colleagues that the information sharing had reached a very high stage of cooperation and collaboration, but that, whether it was fair or not, there were concerns ten or fifteen years ago about people operating in silos and not sharing information.

I can't reflect on the veracity of those concerns then, but I am very confident about the level of information sharing that goes on now, and not just between these agencies but also with CBSA and our various border agencies.

As a matter of fact, in this last operation, though it doesn't reflect directly on these estimates, the number of officers from RCMP, CSIS, CBSA, and local policing forces was very impressive and required a high degree of coordination and information sharing. I can say with confidence that not just the information sharing itself but the desire to make sure information is shared for the security of Canadians is a real priority for these agencies.

If any of them want to reflect more specifically, they may feel free to do so.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I think Canada is an example to the world, and this past weekend was simply one more demonstration. There is always room for improvement, but I can assure you, and you saw it in this operation, there is tremendous collaboration and sharing, not reluctantly but willingly. There is a seamlessness in this country that is in my view the envy of the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The time is up.

The minister asked if anybody else had comments. No? Okay.

We'll have to come back to you.

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'm glad to see you here, and my thanks to the other officials. I'm well aware of the amount of coordination that is going on and has been going on for some time now between all our various officials in keeping Canada and our neighbour safe.

Given the events of this past weekend and some concerns you're clearly hearing from our U.S. neighbours, what are you doing to deal with the issues in and around the media of scaremongering to some degree over there? But we've always had ongoing issues involving concerns about the safety of our borders.

Can you tell me, Mr. Zaccardelli, and you as the minister, what else is being done, given the events of this past weekend, to assure the U.S. about what competent organizations we have working in conjunction with others to ensure the safety of Canadians and our neighbours?

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

I'm glad you raised that, Ms. Sgro, because what certain individuals will say south of the border, and of course how it gets broadcast, is an area that has concerned me.

To take just the last two weeks, for instance, it has been gratifying, in looking at the U.S. administration from the President on down, to see them reflecting on their confidence in Canada as their neighbour and in our capabilities when it comes to security and borders. They have expressed a very high level of confidence.

We heard that from the White House. We heard very positive comments from Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; she specifically reflected on border integrity and their confidence in that area. I was in discussions again today, and a couple of times over the last few days, with the head of Homeland Security in the United States, Secretary Michael Chertoff. We talked about the confidence they have in Canadian capabilities when it comes to security, and specifically when it comes to borders. I received a call from Attorney General Gonzales yesterday or the day before with the very same message.

This expression of confidence is from their highest levels. That's why it's frustrating for us, obviously, when an individual in the United States who is not fully aware of the high degree of professionalism, let's say, and the high degree of accomplishment of our own security forces, comes out with statements--I'm trying to maintain an air of diplomacy here--that are absolutely unfounded in fact and that create a bit of a stir.

The Leader of the Opposition the other day asked questions along these lines. In one of his questions he asked—and I think it was a fair question, but I was rather chuckling because he was asking—what we were going to do to control the media in the United States, who zero in.... I think the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly was saying that he recognizes the high quality of professionalism in security we provide here in Canada. He was asking what we were going to do to control these media, and I was thinking, we can't control the media in Canada; I don't know how we're going to do it in the United States.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

And we would never want to control the media.

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

Of course not. In a democratic society, we want absolute freedom of the press at all times, and we celebrate that.

But I can tell you that each time it's raised we don't just dismiss it . First of all, there could be an individual who doesn't have full information. There may be the motivation, as there is on the political side, with pressure from constituents, to send out certain messages. In each one of those cases, calls are made either by me or, if it's a matter of foreign affairs, by Minister MacKay, right to the key individual, saying, “This has popped up again. Could you deal with it?” When we've made those calls, there's always been a degree of angst expressed by high-level officials, who have said, “We don't know. It's unfortunate that on an individual basis this continues to come out.”

Myths easily spin out. You'll recall that after the devastation, after the tragic events of 9/11, one of the first stories that came out within 24 hours was that the terrorists had crossed the border into Maine from Canada. There was absolutely no substance, not a shred of truth to that, and yet when a story like that first spins out, it grabs headlines. The correction was later made, and even the Americans corrected it and said, “No, you're right”. We reminded them that actually those people were from within their borders. They trained at their flight schools, not ours.

So it's a problem we have, Ms. Sgro. It's one that is frustrating. I met Congresswoman Slaughter, who I think at this very moment is testifying here in Canada for the Senate committee on banking. She is working with us very closely on some of the WHTI concerns. She is just as frustrated when her own counterparts come out with messages like that. She, along with her other comrades and colleagues, is going to be aggressively pursuing that.

So I'm glad you raised it. We get aggressive on it when we hear it. It is difficult to control once a misguided statement is made and then amplified by the media. Corrections are made, but it does send out a perception that just has no foundation in reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Norlock, go ahead, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you and the officials with you, Minister, for coming here today and for filling us in on your department. I think you know my background is in policing, not with the RCMP but with another one of Canada's major police forces.

The question I have for you is with regard to the increase in numbers of police. Will provincial police and municipal police forces see in the allocation of this funding some resources to increase their human resources, which of course are in need also?

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

Yes, we made a commitment in the election campaign, which we are going to fulfill, that there would be allocation, on a cost-shared basis with municipalities, for provision of an extra 2,500 officers at the municipal level. That is separate from and above the 1,000 to which the RCMP has committed.

As I meet with municipal and provincial officials, we're just starting that engagement process to look at their ideas on this cost-sharing approach. The commitment is there for 2,500 extra officers at the municipal level over the next four years.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

I have one other quick question. There's been a promise of a national victims' ombudsman office. I wonder how you see that coming about. Is that coming soon, or is that in your plan?

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

The area of victims of crime is something that we are clearly seized with. I think I mentioned in my remarks an increase in funding related to victims of crime. The ombudsman's office provision is something we're looking at. I don't know if I have the details of timelines right here, but among the initiatives that we're undertaking for victims of crime, including an increase in the compensation fund, we're also looking at that. I just can't give you a date on that right at this moment.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are you're finished, Mr. Norlock?

We'll then move to Mr. Chan.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the minister and his colleagues, many of whom I have worked with before on different occasions. I also thank the minister for the meeting that he granted me when I was the critic on his file. I have since moved on, but this file is a very important one for British Columbia, and particularly for my riding.

I have three questions, Minister, and the first is on the gun registry.

We had the former firearms chief as a witness, and also the person in charge of the Canada Firearms Centre in the Ministry of Justice was with us last week. Through the discussions we had, we came to the conclusion that the savings would be minimal. Our estimate on the outside would be less than $3 million or $4 million, which is significantly less than the $10 million you talk about. The major reason is that the long gun registry is an integrated part of the overall registry, in which the shot guns, handguns, and long guns are in one system.

Also, when I chatted with you at the table about the figures submitted today, there's no significant saving between the year 2005-06 to the year 2006-07. So I would like to ask you, Minister, is the estimation of $10 million accurate?

Because the Auditor General also said that since 2002 the firearms monitoring system has been under control, many of us in this committee feel that cancelling the long gun registry is not a smart move.

I look forward to your answer.

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

Time will tell whose figure is most accurate. The immediate savings of $10 million was identified for us by the former person in charge of the Canada Firearms Centre, Mr. Bill Baker. I think he was here. He identified at least $10 million in savings. As indicated before, the RCMP, although they haven't put an actual figure on it, will be looking for increased savings too. So when you look at our four- or five-year budget projections, a saving of $50 million is significant.

On our overall policy on the monitoring system, maintaining a part of the program that simply is not functioning correctly is an exercise in futility. I don't want to stretch the Auditor General's remarks beyond any intent she had, but when she says that data is unreliable, and when she pointed out that the computer system.... As you will recall, there was an initial system that was contracted. That system proved to be deficient, apparently. It couldn't keep up with the registrations. We're talking about registering some seven million pieces of equipment--long guns, and of course, handguns are included in that. The first system could not handle that load or, apparently, the complexity of it, so a second system was contracted. At the time of the Auditor General's report, and to this date, the second system could not accommodate what had to be done, so they went back to using the first system while paying out huge amounts of money for that second system.

By eliminating the requirement to register the unrestricted long guns, we're going to take a significant load off the system itself. I can't speak right now to the operational end if the RCMP decides to go with the original system, which is in fact being used, but whichever one they're going to use, the load is going to be significantly lighter and it will have the capability to be far more accurate with respect to the other firearms elements, the handgun registry for instance, and restricted and prohibited firearms.

Once you've taken out these other several million pieces of equipment, if you want to call them that—incidentally, the Auditor General also reflected on the verification process: is it truly this specific firearm, does it have that type of capability, and is it that calibre?—we can really focus on the area of licensing for those who want to acquire, hold, or buy firearms, and on the areas where we see the greatest increase in terms of criminal activity, homicides with handguns having gone up over the last two years.

Next year, should we still be here in this present form of government, and should the Prime Minister still deign to have me in this position, either he'll be able to look at me and say, see, it was only $3.4 million, or I'll be able to look at you and say it was $10 million plus. We'll find out then. Either way, it's a lot of money. I remember somebody saying once—and it wasn't from anybody around this table—“Well, a million dollars here, a million dollars there, pretty soon we're going to be talking about real money.” I think $1 million is a lot of money any day of the week, and $10 million is even more, and over five years, what you could do with $50 million in terms of policing and crime prevention programs is significant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie, you have the floor.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Minister, I wonder if, through you, I could ask Mr. Zaccardelli if he could clarify something that we frequently hear, particularly from those who are opposed to getting rid of the long gun registry. We hear numbers of 5,000 hits a day on the current registry. Can the commissioner, if he knows, tell us what automatic checks are done, when a police officer does random checks on CPIC, that go to the registry, as opposed to my understanding, which is that there is not that number of direct requests for the registry.

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

You should just explain CPIC, too, for those who may not be familiar with the story.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

CPIC is a Canadian law enforcement program that came on stream in 1972--the Canadian Police Information Centre. Almost 34 years later, it is still the best system in the world. It's a remarkable system. Last year we finished a total overhaul of it, and it came in on budget and on time. I'm very proud of that. It was one of the major projects in the federal government.

In terms of the 5,000 or 6,000 hits that have been talked about in the papers, you're correct, when CPIC checks are done, there is an automatic connection to the registry. The police officer automatically does that.

I don't have the specific number, sir, of when somebody checks the registry directly. Obviously you can see the connection, because it's always good to make that check. If you do a CPIC check, it means you're checking to see if somebody has a criminal record or if there is a warrant for that person, which would automatically give you reason to be very concerned. So there is an automatic link to the registry. If there's a firearm associated with that person, if you're worried about whether there's a warrant for that person, you would want to make that connection.

So it's an automatic connection. The system was built to kick in for that double-check.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

All I'm trying to indicate to Canadians, though, is that there are not 5,000 checks a day just for firearms registry. Those are automatic checks done by police officers on the street, for names and for a variety of things.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

They're automatic CPIC checks that they automatically go over. I don't have the number of how many are direct checks.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Okay, I appreciate that.

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

Perhaps I'll just add on to that question, because it's an important issue.

In the future, when a CPIC check is done, if you are a person who has a firearm licence, that information is still going to be there. So a police officer would know that there is a possibility of firearms there, just as now they know there's a possibility, but the data are not that reliable.

As I understand it, although I am not an expert on policing, when an officer is approaching a house where a situation has been reported--and we have officers around the table, Dave MacKenzie included--there are always certain methods you put in place, assuming that there will be a firearm there, whether there is or not. That's my understanding, Commissioner.

[Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli]

That's right. If there is any suspicion that there is a firearm, then certain procedures go into place.

The question of the reliability of the data is being looked at. We obviously are going to be looking at that and trying to make sure the information is absolutely reliable. It's essential for the registry to have the confidence of Canadians.