Public Safety Committee on March 18th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is meeting number three.

We are welcoming today our minister, the Honourable Vic Toews. Thank you, sir, for coming before the committee today. We look forward to your testimony.

Along with Mr. Toews is Mr. Baker, the deputy minister, and Mr. Kirvan, the associate deputy minister.

From the RCMP, we have Senior Deputy Commissioner Sweeney. From the Canadian Border Services Agency, we have President Rigby. From Correctional Service Canada, we have Commissioner Head. And last, but not least, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Mr. Fadden, the director.

Thank you all very much for coming to the committee at fairly short notice. We appreciate that very much.

The usual practice at this committee is to allow the minister an opening statement of approximately ten minutes, and we'll follow up with questions and comments.

Welcome, sir, to this committee. You may go ahead whenever you're ready.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee for the first time as Minister of Public Safety to discuss the estimates.

As you've indicated and introduced, there are a number of my officials here today. As well, there are other officials in the audience, so if we don't have all of the information at our fingertips, hopefully one or another of them is able to provide that information.

Supplementary estimates (C) seek approval for funds of $181 million for the current fiscal year. Subject to the approval of Parliament, this will fund security preparations for the upcoming G-8 and G-20 meetings and cover some of the costs incurred by the RCMP and CBSA associated with security at the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. Additional funds are also being requested to help cover the costs to date of Canada's initial response to the earthquake in Haiti.

The main estimates for fiscal year 2010-2011 seek an increase in funds of $589.2 million over fiscal year 2009-2010 for the portfolio. These increases represent prudent investments to protect the safety and security of Canadians at a time of government restraint. The funding would continue to modernize the operations of the RCMP while enhancing its ability to fight capital market fraud, drugs, and border offences. It provides the Correctional Service of Canada with additional resources to implement the Truth in Sentencing Act and deliver additional accommodation for inmates. It would allow the Canada Border Service Agency, or CBSA, to modernize three ports of entry in British Columbia and one in Ontario as part of Canada's economic action plan and to protect front-line officers. It would also allow Public Safety Canada to renew the strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet.

The supplementary and main estimates, which you have before you, reinforce our government's commitment to both fiscal responsibility and to building safer streets and communities for everyone. I look forward to working with this committee over the coming months on our legislative agenda as the government continues to deliver on its commitment to building safer communities.

It's been a busy week. On Monday I released the federal emergency response plan, a plan that helps ensure that the government's response to an emergency is seamless, timely, and that key decisions can be made quickly in emergencies. On Wednesday I introduced legislation to strengthen the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. Earlier this morning I introduced legislation to strengthen the International Transfer of Offenders Act by, among other things, recognizing that one of the key purposes of the act is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. While this is great progress, we know there is still more to be done, and I look forward to continuing to work on this front.

I'd like to close by mentioning that our government remains committed to ensuring that the RCMP is a strong and accountable organization. The RCMP has already taken significant steps to modernize its management and administration practices. We have committed to reforming the RCMP review and complaints system. Budget 2010 allocates $8 million over two years to establish a new civilian independent review and complaints commission, and we hope to introduce legislation to implement it this spring.

I would like to say how privileged I feel to have been entrusted with the role of helping to ensure that this remains one of the most prosperous and safest countries in the world, and I am proud of the 64,000 public servants in my portfolio who work hard every day to keep Canadians safe.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Chair, as I understand it, my time here will be till approximately 4:30, approximately an hour from now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, that's what's on our schedule.

Thank you very much for your opening comments.

As is the usual practice of our committee, we will go over to the official opposition, the Liberal Party, for seven minutes and then go around to the other political parties, all times being seven minutes on the first round.

Mr. Holland, go ahead, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing before our committee today.

Minister, I'm having a problem as we sit through committees and we hear witness after witness after witness, whether from policing or those who are involved in crime prevention, those who are on the front lines of making our community safer, telling us that this government's heading in the wrong direction. They say we're headed towards the American example of hugely over-bloated prisons that cost billions and billions of dollars more in money, and in every jurisdiction where it's tried it's been proven that not only does it cost a huge amount of money, but it actually makes communities less safe. In fact, it was just within the last couple of weeks that we heard from government-funded research that said the direction of this government was taking us to a place that would cost billions of dollars more and make us less safe.

So if all of the research that we are hearing says this government is taking us down an American example that has failed, and failed miserably, I would want to know what evidence, what specific fact-based information you're using to come to the conclusion that the approach you're taking in these issues is going to be anything but a disaster.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for those welcoming remarks, Mr. Holland.

Let's start with statistics, because statistics are always brought up with respect to crime rates in this country dropping. In fact, we know that what is dropping is the rate of reported crime to police. If you look at Statistics Canada, we are now at about 34% of crimes actually being reported to police, and that is steadily dropping.

If one looks at the victimization study that Statistics Canada does every five years--there was one done in 1999 and one in 2004--what we see is a huge increase in crime in this country based on victimization reports. I believe it's somewhere between 15% and 19%.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I think you misunderstood the question. My question was are there specific examples of other jurisdictions that have tried these policies, specific reports that say these policies work, specific evidence-based information that says this works--that's what I'm looking for.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All right, and that's what I was getting to.

So you're in agreement with me that the crime rates continue to rise and they are unacceptably high--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

No. Can I pause and interject? I would disagree, but we're getting into a tangential debate.

The reality is, and this is my point, the Americans have a 700% higher rate of incarceration per capita--700%. It used to only be a difference of about 200%. In that same period of time the two crime rates in the two countries have declined by basically the same amount. So if we're going to follow your strategy here of much larger prison populations, let's just keep it really simple: name a jurisdiction that has tried this that hasn't ended in disaster--one jurisdiction.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let's take a look, then, at the study that was conducted.

You don't want to talk about victimization surveys, which essentially demonstrate that the crime rate is going up in Canada. And if you compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm not talking about the crime rate.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Just let me finish.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Minister, I'm just asking for a jurisdiction or a place that you could give me as an example. I'm not--

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's what I'm getting to. May I, please?

If we look at the studies done, we see that the crime rate is going up in Canada if we compare victimization studies. There's a very interesting study that the Vancouver Board of Trade did in 2007-08. It looks at victimization surveys and indicates how American crime rates and violent crime rates have been falling, and that cities like Vancouver and Winnipeg have crime rates, especially in the areas of property and violent crimes, that exceed most American jurisdictions.

The distinction between the American statistics and the Canadian ones is the fact that many of the American crimes are committed with guns that are banned in Canada. I think all of us here can agree that we don't want to go down that road. But we have seen a dramatic drop in violent crime rates in the United States as a result of the policies they have implemented. You may indicate that they haven't worked, but there is clear evidence. Go to the Vancouver Board of Trade study, and go to some of the other studies I can send you.

The other thing is the suggestion that Canadians should be at risk when the crime rate from 1962 to today has in some respects tripled or more. Our government believes that we should put the safety of Canadians first and the interests of criminals second.

In 1971 Solicitor General Goyer said it was too expensive to keep prisoners in prison, and we had to let the prisoners out on the street. He said that from then on in Canada, we would emphasize the rehabilitation of prisoners rather than the safety of Canadians. That was his statement in the House of Commons in 1971, and that has been the direction of the Liberal Party of Canada for the last 40 years. It's the wrong direction, I submit, and not one that we're going to follow.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Minister, I have a very brief amount of time left. Maybe I can suggest that you submit any evidence you have. I'm looking at Statistics Canada; you're looking at the Vancouver Board of Trade. If you have something concrete that shows that difference I'd welcome it. If you have any jurisdiction that has implemented these types of policies where they've been successful, I'd be interested.

If I could transition, in the capital budget this year there's a 43% increase in capital expenditure for Corrections Canada. The commissioner has said in an e-mail--despite the fact you said there won't be any new construction--that there will be “major construction initiatives that we will pursue in the coming years”.

Given that those aren't itemized, given that the commissioner has clearly stated that they're coming, given the fact that we have a 43% increase, and in the wake of the fact that the parliamentary budget officer is doing a report on how much all this is going to cost--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Order, Mr. Holland. Your time is way up.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Can I just ask the minister to respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

No, you can't. He'll have to take time later to answer. You're way over time.

Ms. Mourani, you have the floor now.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Minister. I have a question for you about the firearms registry.

In the throne speech, it was clearly indicated that your government wanted to remove non-restricted firearms—in other words, long guns—from the firearms registry. I asked you two questions about that in the House of Commons. More or less, you said that it was expensive and pointless.

But I have received letters, accounts and calls from women's groups, victims of the École polytechnique in Montreal, Dawson College, public health officials in Quebec, police chiefs in Montreal and Toronto, the premier of Quebec and Quebec's public safety minister. They all say that the registry is important.

I want to mention something that was reported in the media. On March 15, it was reported that Mr. Blair, the Toronto police chief, was asking his fellow citizens to report anyone they knew who was in possession of unregistered firearms. He was willing to give them $500. The way I see it, a good many people want to keep the registry.

I also did some checking into the fact that, according to you, it is expensive. I looked at the numbers. On November 6, 2006, Peter Martin, Deputy Commissioner of National Police Services at the RCMP, basically said that the long gun component—which you want to get rid of—makes up approximately 20% of the total cost, which boils down to just over $2 million. In some documents, I read that it was around $3 million, according to the RCMP.

Quite frankly, I do not understand. How can you consider $3 million expensive when it is a matter of public safety?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much.

I think it's no secret that our government's position on the long-gun registry is clear. We don't believe it's an effective use of taxpayers' money, and we are committed to seeing the abolition of the long-gun registry.

Having said that, we are very concerned about licensing provisions. We believe that each individual who actually owns a firearm should be properly licensed. There are always steps that can be taken to ensure that appropriate people are licensed, and those who are not competent to own firearms should not be licensed.

That's something I want to continue to emphasize. We strongly believe in the qualifications necessary to own firearms. We believe that the money that has been spent on the firearms could have been much better and more profitably spent on hiring more police officers and having those police officers on the street. That was our government's commitment—to see more RCMP positions. For example, one of our election promises was on the 1,500 positions. We believe that's a much more effective use of taxpayers' money.

As far as the police, I'll let you—

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I do not have much time left, Mr. Minister. Is spending $3 million on public safety too much? I am not talking about $1 billion, but $3 million.

Do you find that way too much money to ensure that 90.9% of firearms are always subject to the firearms registry?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me put it this way. Every year from 2000 to 2006 I sat here in opposition listening to the government of the day tell me how the costs were spiralling out of control. Quite frankly, they were spiralling out of control. Estimates on what we've spent on the long-gun registry are anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion.

Was that an effective use of money? No, it was not an effective use of money. I believe that anything that the long-gun registry could accomplish could be accomplished in a much more effective way through the appropriate licensing system, and that's what we're committed to doing.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Minister, you are talking about the money that was spent to set up the registry, but I am talking about the current budget. It is not $1 billion, and you know it. Even if you were to get rid of the long gun registry, it would shave just $3 million off a total budget of approximately $66.5 million, known as the main estimates. It is not $1 billion. You should put your earpiece in so you can hear better.

In closing, as I do not want to dwell on the topic since I know where you stand, I would like to know whether Mr. Sweeney supports the removal of long guns from the firearms registry. Since he estimated the amount to be $3 million, I would like to know whether he agrees with that idea. I am very intrigued.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Let me answer it this way. Our government is committed to seeing the removal of the long-gun registry. I believe that RCMP officers have much more important things to do than harass farmers and hunters in my constituency when they have .22 rifles and .303s and shotguns that they use almost as tools.

The issue is not one of registry. The issue is one of licensing.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I understand that it is an ideological view. I think they are two different ideologies.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Just a minute. When I speak to police officers, I get various opinions. For example, I know the police association in Manitoba does not support the gun registry. Other police associations do support the registry.

Throughout western Canada, I speak to RCMP officers on the line regularly. There is a division of opinion on that. I believe—