STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 9, 2001

• 1531

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fourteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Today we'll be hearing from the Honourable Lawrence MacAulay, Solicitor General of Canada, on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002. Attending with Minister MacAulay are a number of distinguished guests, and I will leave it to him to do the introductions.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here again today to discuss the spending estimates and the priorities of the portfolio of the Solicitor General.

Joining me is the Deputy Solicitor General, Madame Nicole Jauvin; RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli; the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Ms. Lucie McClung; the acting chair of the National Parole Board, Madame Renée Collette; and the director of CSIS, Mr. Ward Elcock.

As you know, last week I announced the appointment of Mr. Ian Glen as chair of the National Parole Board. He will begin his duties on May 22, and I am sure he will be pleased to meet with members of this committee in the near future. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Madame Collette for her hard work over the past number of months as acting chair of the parole board.

Before we take questions, I would like to update you on what we've done over the past year and how we plan to maintain and improve our country's public safety in the year ahead.

Since my last appearance before this committee, we've taken action on many fronts in a balanced approach to making Canada safer, and we've focused on prevention as much as punishment.

Some of the work includes: tough new money-laundering legislation and the creation of a new Financial Transaction and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada; a new law that makes criminal records of pardoned sex offenders available for background checks, giving further protection to children; proposed legislation to preserve the integrity of our charities by preventing groups with links to terrorists from getting or keeping registered charity status; new resources for police and customs to monitor smuggling activity in the light of tobacco tax increases put in place last month; and responding to the needs of victims, following recommendations by the committee after its review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

But it's in the area of organized crime that we have taken our most aggressive steps. Most of you may recall that the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice unanimously declared organized crime a national priority.

Last September we agreed on a national agenda to combat organized crime. The agenda commits us to cooperate in a number of areas: we created a new process to coordinate policy and priorities, with a committee of deputies reporting to us each year; we agreed to work together to develop laws so that police and prosecutors have the best tools possible to fight organized crime; we agreed to start national data collection on organized crime so that we have a better sense of its impact in communities; and we agreed to support public education and crime prevention, because communities should be active partners in addressing local problems. We have already seen some results.

• 1535

In April, the Minister of Justice and I announced aggressive new measures in proposed amendments to the Criminal Code on organized crime and law enforcement and new funding to fight organized crime. Bill C-24 is the result of wide consultations with provinces and police. As I indicated yesterday, the bill reflects the work of the subcommittee on organized crime and has received the support of our provincial partners and police.

New resources will be used to put the new legislation in place and build on the government's investment in other areas, like the $584 million that the RCMP received in the 2000 budget for organized crime enforcement, improved national police services, and new communication systems.

On the world stage, last December, Canada was one of over 100 countries to sign a first-ever UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. The convention included two protocols—one on migrant smuggling, and another on trafficking in women and children—which Canada also signed.

In addition to working with the UN, we also continue our work with G-8 partners who recently reaffirmed a commitment to fight organized crime.

Our relationship with our closest neighbour, the U.S., continues to be strong, and that is most apparent in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies on both sides of the border.

Take, for example, the very successful Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum. It brings us together on problems such as smuggling, organized crime, telemarketing fraud, money laundering, missing and abducted children, high-tech crime, and more. This year's forum will be held June 20, here in Ottawa, and when I met with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in March, we discussed how much we were looking forward to chairing this forum together.

The strength of that Canada-U.S. partnership was also clear in the Ressam case. As you know, Ressam was convicted last month in the U.S. for actions related to terrorism. The verdict sent a strong message to terrorists, and it has pointed to a positive, productive partnership between Canada and the U.S. on enforcement and intelligence.

All the initiatives I've mentioned so far show the value and the strength of our partnerships across government and in our communities. Public safety depends on them. The best way to make Canadians safe is by making sure all partners work together, and our national information systems are a good example of what practical and partnerships can produce.

The national DNA data bank is one example of such a partnership. You'll be pleased to know that the data bank has already proven to be the powerful investigative tool we designed it to be. Since it opened last June, there have been 22 matches using DNA to link crime scenes to each other or to convicted offenders. With each passing week, there are even more. Clearly the success of the data bank highlights the importance of investing in the very best technology possible.

The integration of justice information to better serve public safety is something we're actively working on with all our partners. Our investment in the renewal of CPIC, modernizing Canada's national police information system so that it's shared more broadly among criminal justice officials, is another example of new partnerships being forged. Significant progress has been made, and CPIC's most urgent needs, regarding accessibility and service disruptions, have already been addressed.

These initiatives bring partners together so that information from different databases will be shared more quickly, using the full benefit of new technology. For example, we want to be able to share police reports more quickly with prosecutors or transmit court records instantly to correctional officials.

When it comes to keeping track of offenders and sharing that information with police, we're also planning major improvements. Yesterday I announced that Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board are beginning an extensive $47-million upgrade on the national offender management system, OMS. Corrections officials use this national electronic system to gather, store, and retrieve files on federal offenders. The new funding will bring OMS technology into the 21st century and ensure that information-sharing on offenders is current, complete, and reliable. The upgrade is very important to the operations of Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board, and most importantly, will contribute to the safety of Canadians.

• 1540

As you know, the federal government has put a high priority on keeping Canada safe, but more than that, it recognizes that feeling safe and secure is a fundamental right for all Canadians.

All the major indicators continue to show that Canada is among the safest countries in the world. The crime rate has declined for the past 10 years. Violent crime is down, and the homicide rate continues to fall. In the past 15 years, we've cut recidivism by more than half.

On that front, the National Parole Board will soon release its mid-year performance report, and I can tell you that the results continue to show that conditional release is a sound investment in public safety. Most offenders on day parole, full parole, or statutory release complete their sentences successfully and do not commit new crimes. But we're always looking for ways to improve the process.

I am pleased to announce today that, beginning in July this year, victims will be able to make verbal presentations at National Parole Board hearings. As you know, until now, victims could submit written statements and attend hearings as observers but were not allowed to speak. That will soon change.

Following on the recommendations of this committee, my department has directly consulted with victims and victim organizations across Canada on how best to put these recommendations in place and improve services to victims of crime. Clearly, victims have asked for a voice in the parole process, and I think it's about time we give them the opportunity to be heard.

It's my duty as Solicitor General to lead Canada's efforts in public safety so that we can continue to feel safe in our neighbourhoods. So while it's clear that we've already delivered some tangible results, we will not stop there.

We'll continue to use the tools we have and keep working to develop new ones. That means we will keep building partnerships at home and abroad, use technology to our advantage, continue our research and policy development, work on new laws and update old ones, and focus on programs that work.

We will listen to the concerns of Canadians and keep them informed on how our leadership in public safety is working for them, and we'll do our best to ensure that Canadians can continue to be proud of how safe this country really is and how their government and communities are working together to keep it that way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the minister and his esteemed colleagues, welcome to the justice committee.

I have three issues I'd like to get some responses to. To give you a little advance notice of them, the first one is Kingston Penitentiary, the second is the offender management system, and the third is drugs in prison.

Kingston Penitentiary has had five guards fired from that institution and four suspended. That is an inordinate number of employees in any organization, much less a prison. There has been an investigation going on there for some time called “Correct Zero”.

I've been informed that one inmate, by the name of Kenneth Murdock, has been paid as much as $30,000 by government to inform on employees. What I would like to know is in fact how government reports on employees through informers, who are paid informers as inmates, and I'd also like to know a little more about this investigation.

Is there, as the employees say—and I've interviewed many of them personally—a headhunting exercise going on in Kingston Penitentiary? Or is there a problem with employees, or is there bad management, or both?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: As you know, there is an investigation taking place in Kingston. As far as who was paid to do what during an investigation, I'm sitting with people who do handle investigations, and I do not.

• 1545

But as far as what takes place within the institution is concerned, perhaps I would let.... Since the commissioner is here, she could...between her and the Commissioner of the RCMP, I believe it would be...being that it's an investigation.

Commissioner Lucie McClung (Correctional Service of Canada): Thank you.

There were allegations brought to us about two and a half years ago that irregular activities were going on pertaining to entry of drugs into our institutions by correctional officers and staff. We immediately informed the police forces because there would be a criminal investigation. The police forces have responded to the criminal investigation, leading to the suspension of nine officers.

The investigation is ongoing, and every time there is a breach of conduct, there will be serious consequences.

Is there a headhunting per se? Have we targeted individuals? No. We will respond to any allegation brought forward, in Kingston Pen or any other facility across the service.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

I'm curious as to why only guards are involved in this, when allegations of drunken officers and theft are also directed at management, not just employees of the organization. Yet no charges have been laid and no suspensions have been directed at that level.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think it would be up to the RCMP, but, as I said a number of times, Mr. White, if anybody has any information of wrongdoing, they should bring it to the attention of the RCMP.

Mr. Randy White: They have.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner respond.

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Minister.

Mr. White, as Commissioner McClung indicated, there's an active investigation, and of course, on that basis, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment about an investigation or anything we're doing relative to that.

Mr. Randy White: Okay. I will tell you that you have been informed of allegations against management and nothing has been done. I look forward to your response on that at some point.

By the way, the individual who had supposedly received the money has been transferred from KP to a penitentiary that's much nicer than KP. So the employees do want to know whether or not they have a paid informer in the ranks of the convicts.

I want to ask about the upgrade to the offender management system. I think the Solicitor General alluded to the fact that this could be called or considered a sex offender registry. I would like to ask the commissioner if he wouldn't mind telling me whether he thinks that is the sex offender registry that so many Canadians have been asking for.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Go ahead.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I think, sir, what you're referring to is CPIC, and obviously in the contents or the information on CPIC there are elements of a sex registry. There are pieces of information on CPIC, and it's really what we would call rudimentary. But there are elements there.

CPIC is undergoing substantial upgrades, as you know. A lot of money is being invested that was given to us by the federal government to upgrade the CPIC system. So the components of a potential sex registry, as we commonly refer to it, are there already. If we had more money, we could upgrade it to make it an actual sex registry that would contain all the information. The problem we have at the present time is that we are doing major upgrades to the system, which prevents us from adding any additional capacity to it.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

But I will say this, although there is an upgrade to CPIC, it does not fulfil the mandate of a sex offender registry. This is the difficulty I think we're having trouble getting across to the Solicitor General.

In fact, sir, the RCMP have a letter, and I'll read a part of it here. They say:

—and we acknowledge that—

That's how you keep a sex offender registry current.

• 1550

Regardless of whether you're technically upgrading the CPIC system or any other system, there has to be legislation put in place to allow for the reporting of sex offenders on a regular basis or on some timeframe to keep that information current.

I would like to ask you again, even though there is a technical upgrade to the database, whether that information would be current without legislation to implement the change and keep it current.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Clearly we would need some legislation to do the upgrades or to be able to put in information according to the law. The reality is that we cannot do anything to that system for several years here until the upgrades are in place, because we're in the process of stabilizing the system. It's a system that has served Canadians well. It is a system that has served the police community very well. And we're in the process of doing a major upgrade, which is going to take a considerable amount of time.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you. You've answered two questions. They are that the government committed to January 30, 2002, to have this system in place, and that you do need legislation to keep it current, which is what we've been telling the government all along. Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I too want to talk about drugs. The report of the Correctional Service of Canada refers to a Canadian anti-drug strategy. It says that the strategy aims at dealing with substance abuse from the point of view of public health rather than criminal activity. Later, it states that the Correctional Service of Canada has realigned its anti-drug strategy according to the Canadian strategy.

What are the reasons that led to this change of strategy and should we conclude that it is an admission of failure resulting from the inability to control drug traffic in our prisons?

Commr Lucie McClung: I would like to clarify what you said about the different perspectives.

For the Correctional Service of Canada, substance abuse is a matter of public health rather than of only criminal activity. This means that the Correctional Service applies both approaches at the same time. It applies control measures to prevent drugs from coming into the institutions and to prevent drug traffic between the inmates, whether they be incarcerated or under community supervision, and it also applies treatment programs in order to try and get rid of abuses and to help people resolve their personal issues.

I can assure you that the Correctional Service will apply both approaches at the same time, in a coordinated manner. In fact, over the past six months, you have probably witnessed a strengthening of control measures in each institution.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Indeed, I heard about control measures in the institutions that would be compulsory for everybody, including staff. Was that implemented in all our institutions?

Commr Lucie McClung: Yes, except in one minimum security institution where we could not receive a piece of equipment called a hand scanner. Apart from that case, control measures were to be applied to each member of our staff, each contract employee and anybody coming into our institutions.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Were to?

Commr Lucie McClung: Pardon me?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You said “were to be applied”.

Commr Lucie McClung: Without making some enquiries, I cannot state that they are applied everywhere exactly. However, this policy has been established for all regions. Some union members, especially some representatives of correctional officers, had expressed some reservations at the beginning but I believe they were reassured later on.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Let's move to another issue. On Monday, I read in La Presse that Health Canada is impeding an RCMP investigation relating to some extravagant expenditures of the Virginia Fontaine Treatment Centre. It would appear that Health Canada refuses to provide some information that would allow the RCMP to determine if a criminal investigation is to be carried out.

• 1555

As Solicitor General, how do you plan to deal with this issue in order to put an end to this refusal so that we be able to go to the end of this incredible matter?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Madam, I believe you're aware...I'm not sure if you were the one who asked the question in the House today—

Ms. Pierrette Venne: No.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: —but that question was responded to by the Minister of Health, and he indicated that all information required was supplied. But we have the commissioner here who can indicate if it was or wasn't. Or can he? Perhaps he can't.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes, I can. I can state that Health Canada has provided us with all the information we need and are cooperating fully with us in terms of completing this investigation.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: When?

[Translation]

When did they decide to provide the information? Was that a long time ago?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: The information has already been provided. I do not know exactly when it was done but I can assure you that it has been done and that we are working with Health Canada to conclude the investigation.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you. I want to refer to another current issue. Last Monday, I read in La Presse that Montreal would be the capital of phone fraud. This newspaper report stated that the RCMP is apparently cooperating with the FBI and also, probably, with the SQ and the Montreal police in an operation called "Colt Project". How can you explain that Montreal would be especially burdened by this type of activity? Why has Montreal become the capital of this type of fraud for Canada and even for North America? Do you have any specific information about this? Why Montreal and not another city?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It is true that some organizations operate from Montreal but it is not limited to that city. There are similar organizations in Toronto, in other cities and in other countries, but the fact is that several have been identified in Montreal. That is why we set up the Colt Project. There is excellent cooperation with the Americans and with the Sûreté du Québec in order to try and put an end to this type of activity.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Is the Colt Project limited to Montreal?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Yes, but there are other operations in other cities and other countries.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: So, reporters have once again exaggerated in stating that Montreal is the capital of phone fraud. That is what I wanted to know. That is why we are here, you see.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Madam, I think it's important to note that this is not...and I know you're not indicating it's only a Montreal problem. This is a worldwide problem. I've met with the director of the FBI and the Attorney General of the U.S., and it's a major problem worldwide.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, but in the newspaper in Montreal they said that Montreal is the capital for the fraud. That's why I asked my question.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Is my time already up? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: You will have another chance.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all. It's good to see the Solicitor General here again. We had him yesterday.

The first question I have is with respect to victims, and you did mention victims here today in your presentation. It is very heartening to see that this is factoring into CSC's and the National Parole Board's approach.

I have a question relating to a specific case that I believe the Solicitor General and certainly Ms. McClung would be aware of, and that is the Nellie Nipard case from Newfoundland. This is a woman who was attacked and stabbed over 30 times. Her husband was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but he's currently coming up for parole in Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick.

Unfortunately, because of her economic circumstances she's not able to attend, so although it's heartening to hear the announcement today that parole board hearings will now have the benefit of the informed comments of victims, if they don't have the economic means to attend, although they can send their victim-impact statements, this right doesn't really mean a lot to them. And because of the nature of our federal penitentiary system, many times offenders are housed in various parts of this vast country.

I note that in the estimates this year for the correctional investigator, there is over $2 million set aside for the correctional investigator to deal with the various concerns and complaints of federal inmates. However, there is no such similar or even near proportionate budget for victims, who are in many instances simply looking for information.

• 1600

So I'm looking for some indication that the department is sensitive to individuals like Ms. Nipard who have expressed a desire to attend these parole board hearings to put on record through oral statements their very legitimate concerns, particularly when the release of a person back into the community is going to have a dramatic impact on their lives. Where is the department's head with respect to the treatment of victims and the sharing of information through something similar to the correctional investigator, to a victims' ombudsman office of sorts?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Peter, do you mean they can read a statement at the parole hearings? Do you mean they can have an audio or visual tape if they can't be there themselves?

Mr. Peter MacKay: If they have expressed a desire to attend, as Ms. Nipard has, is there anything within CSC or the parole board's budgetary restrictions that would prevent them from assisting financially to have the victim attend to make oral representations? That's my question.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Renée.

Ms. Renée Collette (Acting Chair, National Parole Board): Good afternoon. As an administrative tribunal, I think it would be very inappropriate for the board itself to suggest that we should do that. That's why we follow the recommendations of the subcommittee regarding the victim being able to read the statement at a hearing. If a person cannot be there, she could send a video of the reading of her statement and the audio.

I know it's not a perfect system but it provides more inclusiveness for the victim. It's very hard for me right now to tell you that we could do something else in the future because of the nature of our hearings, but we're really committed to having more inclusiveness, and I think it's a milestone for that.

The person will be able to send the written statement by July, as you know, in the new policy. They can do it in person or they can read it on a video and the board member will hear the video.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I appreciate all of that and I recognize it is an important step. I'm still not hearing any indication that there is a sensitivity to the fact that a victim may want to attend. It's almost more frustrating for a victim to know that they have a right to be there but they don't have the means to get there. I'm wondering if there's any flexibility within the department to assist them.

When you have $2 million to deal with complaints of federal inmates because their steaks are burnt or they didn't get a tee-off time, I'd like to know why there isn't some money set aside to get a victim to a parole board hearing when it's going to have such a dramatic impact on their lives if and when the person is released.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: There have been a number of measures taken, but at this time it is not in the provisions to provide funding for victims to attend parole hearings.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

To the Solicitor General, there was reference in your opening statement to the results of partnerships and the tools. This is phraseology we hear often from your department. The reality is that there is a rather spotty record of information sharing between the various elements of your department that fall under your purview with respect to CSIS, RCMP and those outside of your ministry, particularly Immigration Canada. There have been a number of recent cases that demonstrate this.

You mentioned the Ressam case. The Amodeo case perhaps truly highlighted the level of information-sharing we're experiencing in Canada. There was information passed along by other countries, mainly Italy and Germany, about an individual, Mr. Amodeo, who is listed on Interpol. There was a breakdown in communication, the Solicitor General will have to admit. I don't believe it was the RCMP's fault. They did in fact communicate with Immigration, but the information wasn't acted upon or wasn't passed along to the appropriate people.

Are there specific measures being examined to ensure that information is being shared, because that information is oftentimes critical?

This was a man who was wanted for murder. I give you that he is now in custody and going through a hearing, but there are other examples where information doesn't appear to be shared. And I don't know whether it's competitiveness or whether it is simply a personal breakdown between those who are charged with sharing this information. Is this being given a particular focus in your department?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

• 1605

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: On this Amodeo issue, information was provided as soon as it was appropriate. The commissioner will tell you that they identified the individual in December 2000. I know you were referring to Immigration Canada, and it's my understanding that they informed Immigration. The fact of the matter is we're working continually with the federal, provincial, and municipal authorities, with all the technical ability possible to make sure that information-sharing takes place so that we provide a safer society.

You're right, we need to improve. All the time we want to make sure we improve our systems. Sometimes things happen that shouldn't happen, but in general, we are putting the best technology in place, like CPIC and the offender management system. This will provide information from the prosecutors right to the Correctional Service of Canada. At least you'll know if they're in a federal or provincial institution. We'll know when they arrive at a federal institution that they have a provincial record too. These things all had to take place, and we are working quite successfully on these matters. I'll let the commissioner expand on them.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

With respect to the Amodeo case specifically, there has been a thorough and complete review done between the RCMP and Canada Immigration. We have put a number of procedures in place to ensure that our system and the Immigration system, the FOSS system, have the right systems in place and the flags to ensure that the weaknesses in the system will not be repeated. Those have been strengthened, and those were done right after that came to our attention. There is excellent cooperation, as the minister said. It is ongoing.

There is no competition between the RCMP and any other agency in this portfolio or any other department at the federal or provincial level. We work towards a greater good, which is to serve all citizens in all communities throughout this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Chair, could I just have a moment for Mr. White's statement on the CPIC. It's important to note that CPIC is a registry for all offenders, which includes sex offenders.

As we have just said here now, any improvements that can be made.... I know they're in Ontario. In B.C. they're looking at sex offender registries. In Iqaluit, we agreed we would look at this, and if it's any benefit, it will be evaluated down the road.

As the commissioner indicated, if addresses are to be put into CPIC and the technology is there to put the addresses in, that is provincial legislation to be passed in the provincial legislatures. Never overlook that CPIC is the envy of the police worldwide. It's invaluable and just so important a tool.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Blaikie.

We're going to come back around, Mr. White, and I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to rebut.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I have a few issues I wanted to raise with the Solicitor General.

The first one has to do with Quebec City. I begin by acknowledging the responsibility that the government had to guard against any damage or harm being done to the visiting dignitaries and to property.

The government in its wisdom saw fit to erect the wall, which may or may not have been the best thing to do, but nevertheless it was there. There was an understanding from a lot of people who didn't go there to attack the wall or try to bring it down or try to throw things over it or whatever that the wall was the perimeter. Certainly, if people were going to the wall and trying to tear the wall down or throw things over it or breach the wall in some way, or attack police officers, they knew what they were getting into, so to speak.

My concern is with the decision taken at some point during the weekend meeting to basically expand the perimeter beyond the wall in such a way as to include a lot of peaceful protesters—as you know, a great many of them young people—many of whom were just sitting, singing, talking, whatever. A decision was taken by police to expand the perimeter, and people, without any notice whatsoever, had tear gas canisters lobbed into their midst. Then, when they fled, rubber bullets were shot at them from behind.

• 1610

Obviously this is something that I think should be of concern to all of us because there were a lot of good Canadian students out there feeling that, if they weren't trying to attack the wall, and if they weren't trying to harm anybody, then they didn't need to expect that any action would be taken against them, and yet action was taken against them.

So I just wonder, Mr. Solicitor General, whether or not you ordered any kind of internal inquiry. This one calls for a public inquiry, but at the very least it would seem to me that it would be incumbent on you to ask the RCMP in particular, which worked with other police forces, as to what their judgment of the situation was and what justification they felt they had for acting in the ways that they did, and particularly the ways that have been seen to be controversial.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I think you're aware, Mr. Blaikie, that of course we want people to be able to peacefully protest, and we also wanted to make sure that the summit was successful, and this is what had to be weighed when the security measures were put in place. That's what the government wanted, and it's my understanding that the proper security measures were put in place. The minister of security in Quebec agrees, and I agree, too, that the appropriate measures were taken.

But there's one thing, Bill, that I don't do, and that is run the operations of the SQ or the RCMP. When they're on the ground, they have decisions to make while they are there. That must be the case, and that's what Canadians want, but we have the man who's responsible for the movement on the ground, and in fact responsible in part for the success of the summit, and I would ask him to add to it.

We always have to make sure that people are able to peacefully express their views, but we have to make sure, also, that if people want to meet, they're able to meet. And I'm going to let the commissioner—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't disagree. I'm just saying that there was behaviour that didn't threaten the summit and was happening beyond what people thought was the perimeter. At a certain point the perimeter seemed to be expanded, and people started to be fumigated at will by the police, and I just wondered what the justification for that was. I don't think it's beyond your role to ask. I don't think that's interfering in the day-to-day—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Oh, yes. Bill, you're absolutely right.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —actions of the police to say after the fact, gee, this has become controversial. Is there any way that you could provide me, as someone who is responsible at the political level for this kind of activity, what the justification was for those actions that are controversial—not the actions of police protecting themselves, not the actions of people protecting the wall, but what happened well beyond the wall?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I know exactly what you're saying, Bill, and the fact of the matter is that I will receive a report and will evaluate.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You should have said that in the first place. That's what I was asking. Are you going to get a report?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Are you going to share it with us?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner expand on it. Oh, yes, I will share.

Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister.

The operation in Quebec City, like any operation that we undertake, is being subjected to an extensive and in-depth review so that we see what we did right and try to improve on it the next time we have an operation.

The actions of the men and women who participated from all the police forces were.... Every action that was taken was done in reaction to violence that was directed against them. That I can state categorically as the commissioner of the RCMP. We reacted to violence that we were subjected to in trying to carry out a very difficult operation, and police observers from many parts of the world were absolutely amazed at how it was able to come off with so little violence, given what took place.

The Chair: You have one minute, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, I have another question on another matter. I could pursue this further with the commissioner, but after having been implicitly critical of the RCMP, I'd like to come to their defence on another matter having to do with the investigation pending at the treatment centre in Manitoba, the treatment centre on the Sagkeeng reserve.

• 1615

Now there is an RCMP investigation going on, and it appears from the work that's been done by the Winnipeg Free Press in this matter that the RCMP in Manitoba, who are conducting this investigation, have not been able to get all the documents from Health Canada that they have requested. The Minister of Health has said they have everything they need, yet the RCMP in Manitoba continue to say there are outstanding documents having to do with a previous investigation—documents that had to do with whether or not there were grounds for laying charges at an earlier time—that they have not been able to get from Health Canada.

So I want to ask the Solicitor General, how is this resolved? Are you going to bat for your police officers with Health Canada and with the Minister of Health and saying, give the RCMP the documents they say they need? What's occurring on that file within the government?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Bill, you wouldn't want me to get involved in an investigation on who gives what, but I'll let the commissioner respond. I know you wouldn't want me to do that.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'll just wait for the commissioner.

The Chair: Mr. Commissioner.

Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'll repeat the answer I gave before. Health Canada has cooperated completely with us in terms of giving us the documents we need. The spokesperson for the RCMP in Manitoba who spoke on this matter was not absolutely correct. Before I came to this committee this afternoon I checked, and we have received all the documents.

What he said was not correct in that all the documents hadn't been turned over. We have received everything that we're entitled to. Health Canada is cooperating 100% with us in trying to help us conclude this investigation.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Before I go to Mr. DeVillers, I would like to advise the committee that the minister has advised that he needs to leave at 4:45, but that officials will be staying. So in the course of the balance of the next half hour, if there are questions specifically that you want to make sure the minister gets, as against officials, I just wanted to give you that notice.

Paul.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and friends.

On behalf of the subcommittee that did the CCRA review, we thank you for your announcement today accepting and putting into action the recommendation on the victims having the opportunity to make those presentations at the parole board hearings. It's always nice when you receive a favourable answer from the government, but it's always better when you see the action taking place. So thank you very much.

But on the issue of the CCRA review and the subcommittee's recommendations, I think one of the more controversial ones was a recommendation that we didn't make involving statutory release, and it was a subject of a minority report by some of the members of the subcommittee.

When the previous commissioner came before the subcommittee, we didn't really deal in depth with that issue, because I think the committee was more concerned about quotas at that time. At the time, I was the chair of the subcommittee and couldn't be overly critical, but now that it's defunct, I think I can take a little more liberty in saying that I think it wasn't the best use of the committee's time. We could have been dealing with the issue of statutory release.

I just wondered, has CSC done an assessment of stat release recently? What's the opinion of the department on that?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Well, of course we believe and understand that stat release is very important. But every offender eligible for stat release will be reviewed by CSC for possible detention, referral, and then by the National Parole Board to determine whether special conditions should be attached if the inmate's to be released.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, because the committee at one point was deliberating whether it should be replaced with a mandatory parole review. That was the issue that was before the committee, and I'm just wondering what the reaction would be to that type of proposal.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the chair....

Commr Lucie McClung: Right now, sir, every offender is assessed for detention in statutory release. If a person gets to the statutory release, it's because probably nine-plus times out of ten, he has a violent background and therefore would be eligible for us to take a look at detention reviews.

So he or she is assessed as to whether or not they will be incarcerated beyond their statutory release date. Any release plan is tightened up in consultation with the National Parole Board to see if special conditions are indeed warranted. If they are warranted, then it goes to the National Parole Board. But there are no decisions right now for a parole board hearing around statutory release.

• 1620

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I think the subcommittee went on to recommend that all inmates be reviewed for possible detention. Has that been implemented? Is that occurring now?

Commr Lucie McClung: All offenders are indeed reviewed for detention as part of the intake assessment. If they are identified as meeting the criteria for detention, they are flagged and then they are all automatically reviewed for detention, yes, sir.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

My next question, Mr. Minister, deals with Bill C-24, which you were before us yesterday on. The preoccupation there is the activity of the biker gangs. I'm wondering if you could indicate what your assessment of the legislation would be in terms of its effect on those biker gangs.

I know when we in the subcommittee reviewed organized crime, the biker gangs—and there's more to organized crime than biker gangs—seemed to be the ones who got most of the media attention. I'm wondering about your take on the effectiveness of the tools that will be provided to police in the proposed legislation.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Paul, as I responded today in the House, it's so important that if anybody, particularly biker gangs...but it's beyond organized crime too.... If you're going to have a police officer, as they're quite capable here of explaining themselves...but as a government we well understood....

I met an undercover agent in western Canada and I spent an evening in a hotel room with him telling me about how their life can be in jeopardy. They're asked to do certain things, and if they're not able to do it then they can't act undercover. They can't collect the evidence and you can't convict the organized criminal.

But it doesn't have to be organized crime either. It could be a murder case and you need to put somebody undercover in order to collect the evidence. That's also there. But there are a lot of provisions such that I have to designate the authority. I designate the officer or group so that they can go underground. But if other activities must take place, then they have to get permission from an officer on the ground. This is to make sure they can operate and in fact do their job.

But there is a very important process. There's political accountability.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Yes, but I was more interested in the other provisions of Bill C-24, the other tools that will be provided to police in dealing with activities such as those of the biker gangs. What is your take on how effective those would be?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner explain how much of an asset it would be. I think these would be a big asset, but there are other parts of it that would be too.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Obviously we believe these tools are going to be very effective. They're going to be very helpful. But it's important to see these tools as part of a whole series of tools. We don't just have one legislative change that solves all our problems. This is part of an accumulation of tools that have been given to us over the years that enable us to respond to the changing nature of organized crime and serious crime in general.

So this is a very good package that is going to be very helpful along with the resources, the moneys we've gotten.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, my comment back to the Solicitor General is that a sex offender registry is only as good as the information that's put in it. Enabling legislation is required, as Mr. Zaccardelli says, and as most police forces in the country say. Enabling legislation is a necessary part of making sure the information is current.

I want to ask the Solicitor General about two individuals by the name of Thomson and Venables from England, who killed a two- or three-year-old boy by the name of James Bulger. Officials in England have agreed that these individuals could change their names and be sent to another country, either Canada or Australia. I would like to ask you, sir, whether or not discussions have taken place between officials in England and either your department, the RCMP, Corrections Canada, CSIS, the Justice Department or Immigration on that matter.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. White, that's quite a wide-ranging group of departments and I'm not sure I would be aware—

Mr. Randy White: Just speak to yours then.

• 1625

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: On mine, I am not aware, but then again, we have the police and the security intelligence here who would deal with these types of issues.

But as you indicated previously, the legislation is required for the CPIC, and, yes, that's provincial. In terms of a change in the names, if they do it in this country, as you know—we went through this before—that's also provincial.

But in response to the other question, I'd ask whoever wishes to, to respond.

Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): No, Mr. Chairman, we've certainly had no discussions on anything like that.

Mr. Randy White: And the RCMP and Corrections Canada?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I have no knowledge of any discussions, but I would imagine the department that would maybe be most involved is Immigration, because people get into this country through the Immigration Act, not through the RCMP Act.

Mr. Randy White: I would suggest to you that discussions have taken place, and I'd like to pursue this a little further but I only have a minute for another quick question.

The Chair: I think the point's been made that perhaps there are other estimates where this might be pursued.

Mr. Randy White: That's fine.

I would like to ask the commissioner of corrections what on earth is she ever going to do about the drug situation in prisons? It is out of control. There are drug cartels in prisons. If we, as a society, can't keep drugs out of prisons, how on earth are we expected to look after the problem of drugs in our society outside of prisons?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

Commr Lucie McClung: I share your preoccupation, sir, about drugs in prisons.

Mr. Randy White: It's a very valid concern.

Commr Lucie McClung: We have a series of control measures that I am looking to strengthen, and have strengthened, over the last few months with the new equipment everywhere. We are also benefiting from state-of-the-art programming and state-of-the-art research. I am also preoccupied with the aftermath of substance abuse, because it links to infectious disease.

We have to remember who we are dealing with. More than 80% of our offenders come in with very intense substance abuse problems and intense physical problems as well. I am in touch with correctional administrators in very progressive and other jurisdictions because they too are grappling with the same problem. It is a societal problem that has ramifications in our prisons. At this point, there is not one strategy that we have not introduced.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you, Solicitor General, officials.

The Solicitor General made mention of terrorism in his opening remarks, and I'd like to follow up on that a bit. Terrorism, we know, is a global problem, and even peaceful countries like Canada are touched by it, at least indirectly, as we've heard allegations of charitable organizations raising funds for terrorism abroad, and Canada being used as a staging ground, such as in the Ressam case, for terrorism elsewhere.

But I'm equally concerned with terrorist activities in Canada itself. There have been cases in other countries where there has been an overlap between organized crime and terrorism, which seems to be quite unique. Terrorism is being fomented, apparently, by organized crime in order to deplete the resources of police and as a distraction.

I'd like to ask the director of CSIS and the commissioner of the RCMP whether there's any evidence in Canada of direct acts of terrorism—and indeed that overlap, which could be particularly pernicious.

The Chair: Ward.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I think there's no question that in other countries other things have been evident. I would say that among those who are engaged in terrorism here, or who we would consider to be in, if you will, a terrorist community, there are some who support themselves with crime, and in many cases fairly minor crime. Some engage in collection of funds through minor crime, sometimes verging on assault, which probably is more serious. But it's certainly no indication that organized crime groups are tied into terrorism.

Mr. Stephen Owen: Mr. Commissioner.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I would totally support the comments of my colleague, Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Stephen Owen: Thank you, that's comforting.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Blaikie.

• 1630

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I've been active on over the years has been the issue of whether or not the RCMP should be able to organize themselves and bargain collectively with the government. I'm just wondering whether it continues to be the position of the government that this kind of fundamental right to bargain collectively, which many police officers enjoy across the country, should continue to be denied to the RCMP.

I might add that this right to organize and to core labour standards is one of the things that the protesters in Quebec were calling for, for all people, Mr. Chairman, including....

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: We're not in support of the RCMP being unionized, I can tell you that. And I don't think—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Can you tell me why? Do you think it's wrong that other police forces are organized?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the deputy take this one, if she'd like to.

Ms. Nicole Jauvin (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada): Sure.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Presumably, if you frown on it in the case of one police force, you might frown on it when it comes to municipal or urban police forces, unless there's some distinction to be made, which I'd be eager to hear about.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, as the commissioner, I can state that the vast majority of the men and women of the RCMP are very happy with the system they have right now. They're very pleased with the benefits they receive under that system.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Were you going to say something?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Bill, they're a national police force. This has been the policy of the government of this country for many years, and what I give you is the policy of the government.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I know, but policies sometimes get justified. They don't just get asserted.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: You're getting—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Presumably, there's a reason for this. I'm just wondering if there's a distinction to be made as to why some police forces can be organized and others can't. Is it a policy that exists in a complete intellectual vacuum, or is it—

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's a national police force, and it's felt that it's better that it not be unionized. That's the government's view.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: In many places it acts more like a provincial police force.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's a national police force.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I know, but they operate on contract.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's provincial and national.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They do the work of ordinary policemen in a lot of provinces. They do the work that policemen in the provinces do, and sometimes those policemen are organized into separate bargaining units. You say it's a national police force. What is it that makes it immune or separate from other police forces? All I'm saying is that presumably this policy has some kind of rationale. It's not just “That's the way it's done; tough luck”. Or is it?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: The commissioner has something to add.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I think the fact that we are the national police force makes us unique in the fact that we service four levels of policing in this country. The ability of this organization to respond to emergency situations at a moment's notice in various parts of the country and to move personnel without having to negotiate whether or not those people can move under certain conditions is absolutely essential. That is something the state has an absolute interest in doing, and that is one of the fundamental reasons we are uniquely different. We are not just a city police force or a provincial police force. We have to be able to respond to situations and serious crises in this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay.

Is there someone on this side who had a question? Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. McKay is back. I will defer to him if he has a question.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): MacKay to McKay; it sounds like a hockey game.

This is directed to Mr. Elcock. Mr. Elcock and I have gone a couple of rounds with each other on the issue of Suleyman Goven, the Kurd who was interviewed by your department. Some questions were raised about the quality of the interview, shall we say. SIRC reviewed that interview, and in what little published material there is on that it criticized CSIS for, shall we say, creating evidence where evidence didn't exist. I'd be interested in hearing from Mr. Elcock, as the head of CSIS, as to what steps have been taken by CSIS to see that this kind of creative evidence-making doesn't occur again.

• 1635

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there was any suggestion of creative evidence-making in that case. In any case where I've ever heard of it, it certainly hasn't been in respect of CSIS. So I can't comment on that specific issue.

There were some comments—

Mr. John McKay: You can certainly comment on Mr. Rae's criticism of your organization—I'm trying to remember the newspaper report—which was pretty severe.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Rae made some comments about his findings. We responded to some of those comments. In some cases we have changed procedures within the service. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember whether those changes would have been reflected in any of the public documents. In some cases we have changed some of the processes, but in a number of other cases we took the position, which ultimately was supported, that the changes weren't warranted under those circumstances.

Mr. John McKay: I suppose that if I were a cross-examining lawyer, I would find that answer to be highly unacceptable. In this context I can't take apart that answer. But from the standpoint of this member of Parliament, that's not a satisfactory answer.

Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Gee, if I had known we were going to get questions like that, I would have deferred more often.

Mr. John McKay: Sometimes we have to do the job of the opposition, too, Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And not just sit there and ask softball questions like you normally do?

Mr. Chair, I have two questions for the two commissioners. The first relates to the justice minister's vague references to NWEST, a new potentially privately operated force that's going to be set up to enforce the gun registry. I'm just wondering what the commissioner thinks of this mandate and whether it is in fact going to be a separate force. Who will it answer to? Is he aware of the training scheme that was put in place for NWEST? I was told that some of these select officers have gone to the United States for training. Is he concerned that this will in fact be privatized and taken out of the purview of the RCMP where it is now a Criminal Code offence to be in possession of an unregistered firearm? Is he troubled that this may be farmed out from the RCMP mandate?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, this unit that has been set up is not something that was in the RCMP and has now been taken out. This is a unit that was set up by the Department of Justice out of a concern to explain and to give a higher profile to the serious problem of gun smuggling and illegal gun movements in this country.

My understanding of this unit under Justice is that they go out and talk to police forces and help them better understand the laws and how the laws are applied. So it is consistent with what we are doing. They are not doing the enforcement. The police still do the enforcement. It does not take away any authority from the RCMP or any other police force to investigate. But it helps them better understand, because some sections of the Criminal Code dealing with illegal guns and so on are complicated. So this is really to help understand and enhance what we're doing.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Commissioner, for that.

My second question is to the commissioner of corrections, Ms. McClung. Your predecessor, Mr. Ingstrup, had set aside $500,000 from his department for start-up costs for an International Corrections and Prisons Association, of which he was the president, and I believe he remains the president. I'm wondering if there are going to be further contributions from your budget to that.

Another one of his spendthrift initiatives was to put $4 million toward the purchase of a Pilatus. aircraft to be used for transporting violent offenders. I'd like to know how often CSC has used this plane, if at all. I'd like to know if the RCMP also have access to that plane. I understand they have their own fleet of planes, which begs the question, why did we spend $4 million for another one?

• 1640

I would like to know whether in fact there was any opportunity to shop around to get an aircraft, like the Challenger ones owned by DND that we have sitting in a warehouse in Florida. Why was this money spent? What cost analysis, if any, has been done for the expenditure?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Ms. McClung.

Commr Lucie McClung: May I start with your latter question, because I have it here?

There was a business case brought forward at that time for the Pilatus. Yes, the RCMP has access to the plane. It's part of their fleet, in essence. Therefore, we have access to their whole fleet.

There will be an evaluation done by an outside consultant, I believe, by July. By July, I'm sure we'll be able to share with you....

You referred to the $500,000 for the International Corrections Professional Association, ICPA, I believe.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No. I believe it's actually referred to as the International Corrections and Prisons Association, ICPA.

Commr Lucie McClung: Yes. The level of funding has been reduced to $200,000.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is that annually?

Commr Lucie McClung: It is for this year.

It's an important association. It affords us the opportunity to talk, share information, get best practices, etc., across the progressive correctional systems. It is an excellent way and avoids going to each jurisdiction separately. It regroups the correctional systems and will serve us well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madam Allard.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Lady and gentlemen, I am very pleased to welcome you to the Committee.

I was elected for the first time on November 27 in a riding where your department, Mr. Solicitor General, has several institutions. I am referring to Laval East.

I am always a bit surprised to see in our landscape the old Penitentiary of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. I know that people in my riding would very much like to know what will become of those walls.

Apparently, the building would be extremely damaged. People came to see me with the idea of setting up a committee whose job would be to find some new uses for that building. I wonder if it would be possible to put a few tens of thousands of dollars in that project, which our citizens would appreciate very much, especially if there is to be a debate on the future of the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Penitentiary.

I leave that matter to you. As an MP, I would like to know if the Department has any plans along those lines.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner respond.

I thank the committee very much and hopefully will see you next year.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, on a point of order.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The Solicitor General should be aware he's not restricted to one visit. It's not uncommon for ministers to come before the committee.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Blaikie, I'm well aware I could be summoned.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If you wanted to come back, we'd be more than glad to have you.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much. I was here yesterday and I'm here today.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You're overwhelming us with information.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, your invitation to have the minister return, as kind as it is, is not a point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

The commissioner will respond to Madam Allard, and then we'll go to Mr. Cadman.

[Translation]

Commr Lucie McClung: I can tell you that I have been appointed on September 9 and that I am not well aware of that issue. However, I know that it has been pending for a long time. There have been several discussions about the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul Penitentiary and we could probably restart the process. I would even like that a final decision be made.

The building has not been abandoned, there is still a heating system, albeit rather old. At the present time, it is used to make movies. I would be very interested to hear any proposal about that.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you very much, Madam Commissioner.

• 1645

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately the minister escaped me, so I'll direct this question to Commissioner McClung.

Last year in British Columbia we had a case where there was a young person who was serving federal time for murder. He was transferred and serving time as an adult for murder, but he was serving it in a youth facility due to his age.

There was some outrage expressed in the community when they found out that less than a couple of years into his seven-year parole eligibility, he was extended all kinds of bizarre privileges, like ski trips and some things that would not normally be extended to a federal inmate.

My understanding is that CSC has either entered or was about to enter into some kind of memorandum of agreement or memorandum of understanding with the province so that CSC has a little bit more input into the way young offenders who are serving federal time are dealt with in provincial institutions. In other words, they'd make sure that the parole issues are dealt with appropriately.

So if that's happening in B.C., is CSC going to be entering into those kinds of agreements with all the provinces?

Commr Lucie McClung: I'm not aware of the specifics of your case, but let me reassure you on a couple of fronts.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay.

Commr Lucie McClung: Ski trips are not part of our integration program.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, what I'm saying is he was doing federal time, but he was in a youth detention centre and was basically being treated as a youth offender, with CSC not having appropriate input.

Commr Lucie McClung: I see.

When he's in a youth centre, it's under their jurisdiction. When he turns 18, unless there's a condition at the court level, unless it has been decided that he will be transferred to us...when he's transferred, then he's under our jurisdiction. I'm not aware of the memorandum of understanding with British Columbia, and I should be, so I will look into it.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Okay, thank you.

Commr Lucie McClung: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not sure to whom this question should be directed. There have been a couple of occasions where it seems that in relationship to emerging and controversial political issues, people have been inappropriately interviewed, shall we say.

We had the incident of the professor from Lethbridge, Alberta, who was interviewed, I believe by the RCMP, having to do with the professor's upcoming trip to Quebec City. If I remember correctly, he was interviewed for about an hour. People wanted to know all kinds of things, and it was clear that his opposition to the FTAA had something to do with the fact that he was receiving this friendly visit. The Canadian Association of University Teachers protested this. One wonders how many other interviews go on like this that we don't know about.

Then just the other day I was told an American scientist, an activist on the issue of genetically modified foods, who was coming into Canada to participate in the Codex conference that was going on here last week, was stopped at the border. The customs officers who stopped him knew he had previously been in the country and had been speaking out against genetically modified food, knew when he had been here speaking to the Council of Canadians, and hauled him off for an hour or so and questioned him.

So I wonder how much of this goes on. Are people being trailed, watched, interviewed, and harassed at borders because of their political views?

The last time I looked, I thought I lived in a democracy. I thought it was okay to be against the free trade area of the Americas without having to be visited. I didn't realize it was a subversive position; I just thought it was not the position of the government. It's the same with respect to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food.

I'm not sure this is within the direct purview of any of the people we have here before us, and if that's the case, then I apologize somewhat. But we have here the whole gamut from CSIS to the RCMP, to the Solicitor General. If there's anybody who would like to explain this kind of behaviour or justify it, I'd certainly be glad to hear about it.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'll take a stab at it. I'm not going to refer to specific behaviours because I have no information on the two issues that you're really talking about.

• 1650

I can assure you that the men and women who work in the RCMP are trained and are held to the highest standards of accountability when it comes to their behaviour and respecting people's rights under the charter, and, if they do not, they are subjected to the highest scrutiny. There are a number of organizations at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels that look at their behaviour, and they are held accountable under that.

People, if they feel their rights have not been respected when they have been in contact with the RCMP, have a number of avenues through which they can bring their complaints. I don't know the specifics of your case, but we expect and we hold our people accountable to the highest standards in respecting every individual's rights in this country.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess it's sort of a grey area whether your rights are being violated. If somebody comes to talk to you about this, they're not really stopping you from speaking out, but on the other hand it does convey a form of official disapproval. It has a kind of a chilling effect. I'm pretty sure that the people who are coming into the country to support the idea of genetically modified foods and not having them labelled and the people who are coming into the country to support the idea of a free trade area of the Americas probably aren't subjected to the same kind of questioning.

I hope I'm not being too cynical, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)): You would never be too cynical.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm only partly being facetious, because does this not raise a very serious question as to why some views and people who hold them are subjected to this kind of...not necessarily a charter violation, but nevertheless a form of harassment, probing, treatment, if you like? It's not technically a violation of the charter but nevertheless gives the impression that the police—whoever it is that's doing this, whether it's the police, or CSIS, or whatever—are taking sides on what is essentially a legitimate democratic debate. It isn't a matter of national security—I didn't think it was, anyway—whether or not we have free trade or not or whether or not we have genetically modified organisms.

So I just want to register a concern, which not just I but a lot of people have, that there are kind of shades of an old movie here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. You're well over time. You didn't start anew when I stepped into the chair.

Anyone on the government side? Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: This is directed to Ms. McClung—that is, the issue of the women's prison in Kingston. I understand that it was closed last year. It's a terrific piece of real estate, and I'm just wondering what the plans might be and how that might impact upon your budgeting over the next year.

Commr Lucie McClung: We don't have definite plans yet. We're still studying alternatives and developing options for consideration.

Mr. John McKay: Can you be any more specific than that?

Commr Lucie McClung: No, I can't because I didn't actually look into it. It will be part of our planning process this year, so the options will be developed in a timely manner for the fall.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It's a lovely piece of real estate. Were you thinking of buying?

Mr. John McKay: I could think of a few condo developers who wouldn't mind that piece of real estate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): That's it, Mr. McKay?

Commr Lucie McClung: It's a heritage building as well, right?

Mr. John McKay: That presumably restricts your ability to deal with the property.

Commr Lucie McClung: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

James Armbruster had 63 prior conviction—63; you have to work on that—in a lifetime, and he was sent from maximum to a community-release centre and got out within six days, I think, and sexually assaulted a woman and robbed a store. The lady sued Corrections Canada, and there was an out-of-court settlement for $250,000 just recently. Paul DeVries had 63 prior convictions, was released from prison, and murdered somebody.

I guess I keep wondering...and I sincerely hope this individual sues as well because somewhere along the way it seems to me that this word that is called “rehabilitation” either doesn't take place, or somewhere within the justice system the cumulative damage individuals are doing to our society is not considered.

• 1655

I wonder, Ms. McClung, if you could enlighten me as to why an individual with 63 prior convictions could possibly go from maximum to community release on and on and on and on—in perpetuity, it seems—and what responsibility Corrections Canada has. Obviously they had some responsibility in this, or they wouldn't have settled.

Commr Lucie McClung: I believe that reintegration does indeed exist. When one considers the reoffending rate of people on day parole, full parole, or statutory release...and I won't go into the statistics because one reoffending has dramatic implications for the individuals and for society, so it doesn't fully answer your question, and I understand that.

Saying that corrections and changing behaviour are not a pure science, although true, still doesn't answer the question. All that we can do is try to find ways to do better. On the specific issue of getting a person from a maximum security institution into a community residential facility, or to someone's home, or by him or herself, we're adding a focus that this not happen. So that means they will have to have the programming in place because that's our responsibility, to have the programming in place so that this happens as little as possible. Correctionally, I think we have an accountability to put the programs in place to match the needs of offenders. I will be looking into the direct transfers from a maximum security or the special handling unit to the community, and I have directed that we study this so that it doesn't happen.

Mr. Randy White: When you look at transfers, then perhaps you should also look at unescorted transfers on public transportation like buses, where we've seen—I've brought this up in the House several times—individuals given bus passes to get on board, and nobody knows about it. The bus driver doesn't know; the people they're sitting with don't know. In one case we had one fellow do that. He was supposed to go from Joyceville to another prison and ended up hacking a person up in six parts. This is the kind of guy that gets on a bus to go to another prison by himself, and I think you should look at that kind of transfer as well.

Commr Lucie McClung: I'd just like to correct any impression that your comment may have raised. Transfers between institutions and correctional facilities are done through CSC because.... It's a technical term, so I'd just like to set the record straight. Placement or transfer, if you wish, from an institution...status of incarceration to status of parole; the person is on parole and therefore free to take up any transportation he wishes unless we have a condition of supervision.

Mr. Randy White: But you still have a responsibility.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Randy White, you're over time.

It's now the government's turn. Inasmuch as everyone here knows, I ordinarily don't ask questions, but I was unable to get the chairman's eye while he was in the chair. Well, now I can get the chairman's eye.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I was actually skipped in that round, if you don't mind.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): We certainly wouldn't do that. We'll get to you next time. You're after me.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Oh, next time, okay.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): No, you're after me.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right, fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): There are a couple of things that don't directly affect the bill, but I think they do affect the whole system. I'll only mention one of them, and it's one that I've been flogging for two or three years. I've done the waltz and the minuet with various people on it. I'd like to do a foxtrot. I understand how to do that.

Ion detectors—do we have them in all institutions? Now I'm not interested in if we don't have them in minimum security. It doesn't matter; if we've got a drug problem in a minimum security, we've made a mistake in transferring the inmate there. Do we have them in medium and maximum institutions?

Next question: are they being used to examine everyone going in and out, including all correctional staff? If they are—and you may not want to answer this—was this what triggered the investigation at Portsmouth Penitentiary?

Commr Lucie McClung: At Kingston Penitentiary?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Same thing, yes. I'm pretty old; I use old terms.

• 1700

Commr Lucie McClung: What triggered the investigation at Kingston Penitentiary was allegations brought forward by an inmate.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Okay. Let's get back to the first question then because I am interested in that.

Commr Lucie McClung: Can I guarantee right now that ion detectors are used for everybody entering the institution? No, I would like to get back to you on that. I can guarantee that they are checked. I cannot guarantee, sir, today that they are all checked through the ion scanner when you have an event with 50 volunteers coming in, for instance.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): It really wasn't what I was after. On a routine basis, are the correctional staff on their regular work shifts checked?

Commr Lucie McClung: Yes, they're supposed to be checked by the ion scanners.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you. You did the foxtrot with me.

Mr. MacKay, inasmuch as I don't want you to go away with your feelings hurt—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'd never do that, and I'm not going to do the foxtrot with you, Mr. Chair.

The recent Bill C-15, Mr. Commissioner, has been brought forward. Much of the focus in that bill, as you would know, is on Internet pornography and the efforts in funding to combat this particular issue.

In the United States the FBI have created the Innocent Images unit, which involves federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Other countries like Sweden have also focused on this particular area.

It's included in the RCMP report on plans and priorities for this year that there is a need to formulate policy options for, and I'm quoting from the report, “coordinated national law enforcement strategy designed to combat the sexual victimization of children without compromising existing efforts of individual jurisdictions”.

My question is this. What steps are you aware of or is there a concerted effort for Canada to take steps towards promoting a coordinated effort to identify children who are found in child pornography? Is there a data bank that's being produced? Is Canada following the lead of other jurisdictions to make this a priority in this country?

We know, for example, that there are thousands and thousands of images that are sometimes accumulated even on a single website. Through a coordinated effort there may be a way not only to identify those children but also to help prevent further victimization if they are, for example, kidnapped and being used as sex slaves. It's a very serious situation that's happening right around the world.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Commissioner.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: As Mr. MacKay said, this is an international problem. We are very much aware of it. We have taken a number of steps. We have identified people who monitor on a regular basis what is going on on the Internet. We collaborate very effectively with other police forces, the Americans in particular. We've just had a successful case collaborating with the Americans. Other police forces regularly monitor what's going on.

This is a major issue. We're very concerned about that, and obviously we use the legislative tools available to us.

We look at increasing our capacity, our competencies, within our organization...people who can better monitor this and investigate on the Internet. This is clearly an emerging area. It is part of a much broader global issue, the smuggling and abuse of women and children on a worldwide basis. The UN has recognized that. The minister referred to the convention last year that was signed, where Canada participated. This is all part of that.

So this is a very serious issue and it is a very serious matter for us in terms of investigating, monitoring, and trying to deal with this problem.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Commissioner.

Do I have more time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): You have ten seconds. Use it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My next question is to the commissioner of the correctional service. I would like to turn back to this issue of the plane again for a second. This is the $4 million plane.

Commr Lucie McClung: We only have one.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I know you only have one. How many times was it used in the past year? It was available to CSC for over a year in March 2000 and it hadn't been used, not once at that time. I know it was to be used to deal with the transportation not only of inmates but also of staff and the commissioner himself, who had a propensity to travel.

I'm just wondering if there's any update on whether the plane has ever been used. You told me earlier that you also have access to RCMP planes. Again, I'm looking for some justification for a $4 million expenditure from CSC.

• 1705

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): That will be it, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commr Lucie McClung: I don't have the facts and figures with me—they're back home—but I can give them to you through correspondence, or however we do this. I can only tell you that I've used it twice. That's all I can tell you right now. I know this doesn't satisfy you, but I just don't have the information with me, and I haven't looked at it, so I don't have it in my head.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's part of this issue of victim transportation, if we're looking for some way to see that victims have the ability to attend parole hearings.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Mr. MacKay, if I might add something, I know a little bit about that aircraft, and your figure of $4 million seems a bit pricey. It must be including spare parts for the next 50 years.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Maybe you could give us the figure then, Mr. Chair, if you have it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): No, I would rather not, but I have trouble with the $4 million figure. It's a single-engine plane, and as a matter of fact I've flown in one.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'll give you the evidence if you'd like it, Mr. Chair. If you're disputing the cost, I'd be glad to provide you with what I have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I just said I have a problem with it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a huge problem with it myself. That's why I asked the question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'll check out the price and I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Commr Lucie McClung: If I may, sir, there was a business case put together, and we will be following up on the business case, as I suggested earlier on. But I think Commissioner Zaccardelli may have some stats to answer part of your question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, the RCMP has gone to the Pilatus as a platform for all its aircraft. It is one of the most efficient and effective planes we have, and I must say we do share this in partnership with Corrections Canada. This is, in my view, one of the best examples of partnerships and collaboration within the portfolio. We need that plane; it helps us, and we also help Corrections Canada. So it's a benefit to both of us. Somebody here mentioned competition; this is an example of where we actually share and leverage our collective resources.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a question so much as maybe a series of comments. I would like to, first of all, say that it's tough coming before a committee like this and getting the kind of grilling questions you have, but I think it's very important in terms of our parliamentary system and our democracy. I know as well that my constituents and people I know very much respect not only each of you here but the institutions you serve.

I want to say to you, Commissioner Zaccardelli—and Mr. Blaikie, of course, will argue with me and that's fine—that the display you put on in Quebec City in terms of restraint was second to none. I had the opportunity to see that, and I had the opportunity again last Thursday night in Montreal to see some of the things that were happening at the Queen Elizabeth hotel where whole barricades were flipped and thrown right at police officers. And who are these people, Mr. Chairman? They're men and women who often have kids the very same age as the young protesters protesting.

You did an enormous job and you did a great thing for Canada. You need to know that and you need to appreciate that Canadians very much respect this.

I want to say to Ms. McClung that I don't think it's coincidental that people from Sweden and people from France, and people even from the United States and elsewhere across this globe, come to Canada to study our correctional system. Why do they do it? They do it, Mr. Chairman, because it's a very good one. And, yes, we have individual cases, ones that we can blow out of proportion and about which we can say that this is the norm as opposed to the exception, but that is not the reality. The reality is that we have a system in place that functions reasonably well, and some would argue very well.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think as an individual member of Parliament, I certainly want to take the position that these are very fine individuals and people who I think deserve the gratitude of the nation.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Myers. Incidentally, having been in Quebec City on both sides of the barricades, I would concur with what Mr. Myers has said.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Commissioner Zaccardelli. I think some of the staffing and the resourcing problems the RCMP have had has been well documented over the past few years. I especially refer to my own community of Surrey, which has the largest detachment in the country. At one point we were down, arguably, to 40 members out of a 378 complement.

• 1710

I realize that supposedly has been addressed, and yet when I talk to some of the folks back home, they say, yes, it has, but it hasn't; we're not too sure. I wanted to get your perspective on whether we are getting those detachments back up to complement, both operationally and in terms of staff.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'm pleased to report that I was out in Surrey, which is the largest detachment, and they were actually surplus to establishment, so they are fully up. We have received all the money from the government to ensure that we have all the cadets going through training so that we can meet our commitments to our municipal and provincial contracts. We are doing that. We have all the resources.

There are still a few places in this country that are a few positions short, but we are well on our way to having a full complement in the RCMP in terms of meeting our contract obligations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I have a question for Mr. Elcock and Commissioner Zaccardelli. As you know, Bill C-24 is proposing a limited form of immunity for police officers and others, and the way it's being presented to us is that we need this limited form of immunity as a result of Campbell v. Shirose, and also in order to be able to have “more tools” to fight organized crime, terrorism, etc.

Interestingly, there is no restriction in the limited form of immunity to those subjects, namely, terrorism and organized crime. Rather it is simply a blanket form of limited immunity for investigations into any criminal activity, no matter really how minor.

I wonder whether the two of you have given consideration to whether there should be some form of statutory limitation on that limited form of immunity to address the very issue that we all live under the rule of law, including members of the police and those who have special status to protect us.

So I would be interested in your response on that issue, because it is a significant civil rights issue to allow anyone in our society, but particularly police officers, any form of immunity to go out and commit crime, with certain exceptions, and not be subject to any liability on that. I'd be interested in your comments.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should comment first. Since the officers at CSIS are not police officers, the legislation has no application to us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Ward always gets to give the easy answers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I could have told you it wasn't easy.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Mr. Chairman, obviously this situation is one where the Supreme Court said there had to be legislation to authorize certain acts by the police, and what the legislation does is bring us back to a level playing field, to the basics of what we had before Shirose and Campbell, which basically was the common-law system.

We do have certain authorities to commit certain violations of the law, but as the minister stated before, there is clear accountability built into the process. As the commissioner, I will have clear accountability to report to him. It is clear that the intent here, and what I will do and what I know every chief of police or other commissioner will do, is to reserve this option or this law for the most severe cases.

This is not when we intend to abuse any law. That is not the purpose here. These are simply the tools we need to operate in a modern, complex society where serious criminal organizations operate and menace our society. We need the simple tools to be able to offer to sell drugs in order to engage people who are involved in this type of activity. We need to be able to buy counterfeit currency so that we can protect the currency of this country. That is where this is going to be used. There are going to be very strict rules and very strict accounting on this, and I have made my personal commitment to doing this to the minister, and we will be accounting publicly for this.

I know a number of statements have been made in the papers and editorials. They've made reference to very serious crimes that are going to be committed, this lack of control on the police. That is absolutely not going to happen. I can guarantee this committee that.

• 1715

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. John McKay: Do I have time?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I'll allow you one more.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. You're such a generous chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): I know.

Mr. John McKay: I like you better than the other one.

I'm quite prepared to accept your statement at face value that you intend not to abuse this authority. But the problem, as I see it, is that two or three years from now, this law is passed, there's a pattern that has been set up, the authorities have been delegated, there's kind of a working relationship between those police who seek the authority to do and those who have the power to grant the authority, and it's documented. Then you start down some slippery slope, and you get out of the issue of organized crime and into areas where it's just a bunch of kids, or a bunch of whoevers, doing something, and we need to be able to trap them in something.

You see, there's sort of a sense of unease that there will be, on the face of it, no intention to abuse, but the realities are that the working relationships will be such that abuse will become quite subtle, and in a very short number of years it will almost be institutionalized, and then we won't be able to unwind that.

I think that was the testimony of the woman who represented the Barreau du Québec. Her very compelling statement, as a lawyer and as a woman from Quebec, was that she was extremely nervous about giving the police more powers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. McKay. I think you made your point.

Commissioner.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Again, we will be held to the highest test, and I will submit myself to the highest standards of reporting.

We have a number of organizations that supervise the police very closely—of course, including the courts. If there is any abuse, that will become apparent very quickly, and the appropriate authorities will deal with that, including the minister, who will have me answering for that.

I will ensure that my people obey the spirit and the intent of the law. There will be no abusiveness. Nobody is going to be authorized to use this power for anything but the most serious types of offences. I haven't the resources to waste this type of authority or this type of power on minor cases. That's the reality of the situation we face.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Commissioner.

That's now recorded. I hope it doesn't come back to haunt us.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wonder if the commissioner could tell us, given the high concentration of police, and particularly RCMP, that were in Quebec City, how many communities across the country were left either without or with reduced police service for the duration of the summit. Surely there must be some analysis or statistics. These guys weren't all in a closet somewhere and you just let them out. They came from somewhere.

I wonder just how many communities were affected in that way for that period of time.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I can't give you the exact number of communities, but they came from a number of provinces. British Columbia provided some, and some were from the Maritimes. That is part of the agreement. That is part of the contract we have.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I understand. But would it be possible to provide us with that figure so that we know just what kinds of resources were diverted from ordinary police work in order to do what seemed to be necessary at the summit?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I can provide you with the exact number.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I appreciate that.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Those are very public numbers in terms of how many men and women were in Quebec City.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Not how many were there, but how many communities had forfeited their usual number of police officers for that period of time in order to make that possible.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: I will tell you how many provinces. I don't know if I can be precise on exactly how many communities, but I will try to get that information for you.

• 1720

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the complaints I receive from organized-crime-fighting agencies is the amount of administration required to establish a wiretap. The comments I got were that it used to take five pages and five hours, and now it's about 1,500 pages.... It's such an onerous job, by the time they get it done it's often been a waste of time.

Can you comment on where that whole wiretapping business has gone, and is that in fact true?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: In preparing an application for a wiretap, an affidavit has to be prepared. What is required to be done is established by law under the Criminal Code and interpreted by the courts. We comply with those requirements. Yes, it does take time to prepare those. In some cases, depending on the complexity, it requires more effort and a greater volume of paper to prepare it. We're moving quickly towards using technology so that we don't have to use so much paper. What we do is balance the right of the citizen and the right and the ability of the police to carry out their work.

It has gotten more onerous since when the legislation was first introduced, but our job is to comply with the law, and we do that in every single case in meeting the test as required by the courts.

Mr. Randy White: I'm just wondering if it detracted from the expediency of dealing with cases.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: We comply with it, and if it takes us a little longer to prepare the affidavit it means we have a little less time to be out there, that's true. But we try to make up for that by being more effective and efficient in how we use our resources.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. White.

Mr. Mackay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a brief follow-up question to my friend's question about the wiretaps and the requisite paperwork. I still speak quite often with members of your force and others who are engaged in this necessary act of information collection. One of the complaints I hear, and I suspect you may be aware of this, is the shortage of justices of the peace who are available, particularly in rural Canada, to assist in obtaining warrants. I'm wondering if this is something that you as commissioner have focused on or brought up at any point with the department. Perhaps we might hear from the deputy on this as well.

I'm aware of the new availability of tele-warrants, but at least in parts of the country we don't seem to be using those as frequently as we could. If there is some impediment to that, you might tell us as well. But the availability of justices of the peace seems to be part of the potential breakdown in terms of obtaining warrants.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: It has not come to my personal attention that this is a major problem. Justices of the peace are appointed through the province, so that's a provincial responsibility.

I can clearly state that our men and women are very resourceful in identifying and having the right contacts when the need to have access to a justice of the peace, or crowns or judges, and I know they make themselves very much available. I'm very much aware of judges who are always available at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning to assist the police. That has never been raised to me as an issue.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The second question is either to the deputy or Commissioner McClung. With respect to the contact person that a victim often has within the system, whether it be the parole or the corrections system, I'm advised that quite often the contact person for the victim is the same person who is working directly with the offender. In fact, I was informed of an occasion where a woman was put in contact with the parole officer for the man who had murdered her mother, and she found this to be very offensive and traumatic.

It goes back again, I guess, to the department's intentions as to whether there is going to be money put aside or whether there is any willingness even to work closer with victims to ensure that they have a separate contact person within the system. In the bigger picture, is there movement towards having a separate victims' ombudsman or a direct contact within the federal system so that they're getting at least equivalent treatment, or access to information, as offenders and offenders' families? That's with the greatest respect to your responsibilities there. There does appear to be quite an anomaly. Victims receive approximately one-tenth of the available funding within CSC. When you have the correctional investigator getting over $2 million and offenders getting somewhere around $130,000, there's quite a disparity.

• 1725

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Ms. Nicole Jauvin: Maybe I can start, and if there's anything more to add....

Certainly, we are looking at that in the context of the response of the government to the CCRA committee that looked at the CCRA, and that was one of the recommendations that was made. The department has undertaken, with colleagues at the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service, a whole series of consultations with victims throughout the country, to hear what their requirements are, what their needs are. We are compiling the information we have received from those consultations, which were absolutely excellent, and we have a lot of good suggestions. We will take all of these comments and these requirements into account in preparing for the government's response, with respect to victims in particular.

There has been some discussion of a victims' office or a victims' ombudsman. That is something that is being considered, but we have to look at it. We have to look at what the best mechanism would be for the victims. They have been very good at articulating specific needs, and that's what we're going to be looking at right now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you.

Ms. Collette, do you want to...?

Ms. Renée Collette: I just want to say that in each region where the National Parole Board has an office, there are some liaison officers, whose duties are to be in contact with victims. In some regions we do have one or two persons, depending on the volume—and it's staff shared with Correctional Service Canada—who just work with victims; they don't work with offenders. They give information about the process, inform them of what we can inform by law, and they are the constant contact with that person.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Ms. Collette.

Mr. Cadman, last question.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a short question for Commissioner Zaccardelli.

Yesterday, in speaking with Chief Douglas of the organized crime unit of British Columbia, I was discussing some of the problems the British Columbia ports pose for them. He indicated to me that they feel they can do the job; the problem is resources. He told me he has four people dedicated to dealing with all the ports in British Columbia. So in his eyes it really comes down to a problem of resources; they just don't have the resources to deal with the ports. That's just in B.C. We have other ports in Canada too.

I'm just wondering if you would care to comment on that, on the resource problem for policing the ports themselves.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, the question of the ports is a very complex one, and it is not as simple as saying if we have more police officers at the ports we can be more effective. The ports have to be seen, and are, as a venue through which criminal activity takes place. The people who conduct and control that criminal activity are not at the ports. I mean, they have people who work at the ports, but they are really people at the bottom end of the organization. It's getting to the people at the higher end of the organization, who are not at the ports. That is the challenge, and that is how we're effective.

So, yes, there has to be some presence. You have to work at the ports. But the greater challenge is attacking and understanding, getting the intelligence to identify those criminal organizations, the people at the higher end of the organization, who are elsewhere, often in other parts of the country, at times in other parts of the world, because there are no borders when it comes to organized crime. That is what we concentrate on. The majority of our resources are concentrated on identifying where those key people are in these criminal organizations and understanding the activity that takes place at the port.

• 1730

So it's not about having a direct presence that will make you more effective. It is having intelligence and having partnerships around the world that identify those organizations and attacking the heads of those organizations. That's how we could become more effective. There is a need to know what's going on at the port, but you don't necessarily have to have a great presence at the port.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Ivan Grose): Thank you, Commissioner.

This being the end of our meeting—the lights have just started, so like Pavlov's dog we start to salivate—I'd like to thank the witnesses. For those of you who haven't been here before, see, you're not bleeding.

I'd like to thank you very much. Your answers were most complete and to the point. I look forward to seeing you again. This meeting is adjourned.

Top of document