CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Comité permanent de la justice, des droits de la personne, de la sécurité publique et de la protection civile

EVIDENCE NUMBER 40, TÉMOIGNAGES DU COMITÉ NUMÉRO 40

COPIE NON ÉDITÉE – UNEDITED COPY

Le mardi 17 mai 2005 – Tuesday May 17th 2005

* * *

[SNIP]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Thank you very much. And thank you to all the witnesses and the minister for appearing, I appreciate that very much.

We have just heard from the Auditor General that over $5 million was spent in advertising contracts to Groupaction. Included in that was $330,000 for the RCMP in what she termed an entirely bogus contract. Madam Minister, you were fully accountable and responsible for the gun registry when these contracts were awarded. My question to you is simply, what did you know about the awarding of this contract, and when did you know about it?

Hon. Anne McLellan: No, I knew nothing about the awarding of that contract. I believe the Public Accounts Committee itself, chaired by a member of your party, indicated publicly recently, I think it was the Auditor General or someone who testified before the committee, that those contracts were let through Public Works and the Department of Justice was not involved.

But I don't know whether Commissioner Zaccardelli knows anything about the particular contract involving the RCMP. I have no idea. Do you want to say anything about that, Commissioner?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli (Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I'm sorry, without further information, I have no knowledge of that contract, sir.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's public knowledge that was done, and you no (inaudible) of that--

Hon. Anne McLellan: No.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: --despite what has been revealed?

Hon. Anne McLellan: I know what the Auditor General has said. But as I say, I think, if you were referring to contracts let during some period of time when I was minister of justice, I do believe it was in testimony before the public accounts committee that those contracts were let by public works, not my department.

(0915)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Isn't there some onus on you or the RCMP to investigate these things?

Hon. Anne McLellan: In fact, the RCMP is indeed investigating the entire sponsorship situation, and I'm sure Commissioner Zaccardelli could comment on that.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: If you're referring to the sponsorship issue, all that I have testified before the Gomery inquiry and we have explained exactly what's happened. The RCMP did receive moneys from the sponsorship program. We received approximately $1.5 million, which we applied for. We put on over 700 events throughout the country. At a certain point, we became aware that there were certain irregularities in how those moneys were accounted for. We did our own internal audit and corrected the mistakes. The Auditor General actually complimented us for taking the initiative to correct those initial mistakes, and we've explained that. If you can be more specific, I'll try to give you more information.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Let's pursue that later. I want to bring up another issue as well. I think this is quite serious.
Last week we received a document from the Border Services Agency that stated, and I'd like to quote: “Funds received from the CFC are always less than our annual delivery costs”.

So my question is, why would you allow, Madam Minister, the Firearms Centre, which really has been quite useless I might add in curtailing gun smuggling, to shortchange our customs officers?

Hon. Anne McLellan: I think Mr. Baker is able to answer that question.

Mr. William Baker (Commissioner, Canada Firearms Centre): Yes.

It's been a feature of our budget, year over year, that we provide some money to the Border Services Agency in support of their responsibilities with respect to the administration of the Firearms Act. That relates to the processing of the non-resident declarations and the collection of fees. The Border Agency also has ongoing responsibilities with respect to the control of firearms entering the country.

I've discussed this matter with the president, Mr. Jolicoeur, and we're comfortable that today the amount of money being received by the Border Agency is sufficient to offset the costs directly attributable to the Firearms Act.

Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Jolicoeur, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur (President, Canada Border Services Agency): No. Simply to agree with Mr. Baker that part of the cost that is attributed to the work that we're doing on behalf of CFC, we're very satisfied that we're receiving the right amount of money.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: According to our figures, it was at least $2 million short in the amount that it's never attributed to the cost of the firearms registry.

But my time is short. I want to go to another matter as well.

The National Post recorded that Detective Sergeant Gary Keyes, head of the Toronto police Gun and Gang Task Force provided them with the following facts, and I'm just going to quickly go through these. Police have identified roughly 1,500 gang members in the GTA belonging to 70 or 80 organizations. The second one, “Of the 65 murders that rocked Toronto in 2003, roughly 31 involved guns, 27 of those were gang related. Also, between 50% and 60% of the black market firearms are smuggled from the U.S.

More than 10 years ago on February 16, 1995, Madam Minister, your predecessor, Mr. Rock, made this promise to Parliament, and I'd like to quote: “Surely we must choke off the sources of supply for the underground market. Surely we must reduce the number of firearms smuggled into the country. Surely we must cut down the number of firearms stolen and traded in the underground. How do we achieve this?Through registration”.

Madam Minister, I think it's pretty obvious that's not happening. So my question is, why has the gun registry failed, why has it failed to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals?

Hon. Anne McLellan: Of course, I reject the premise that it has failed in terms of dealing with gun smuggling. It is one of the tools that we have to deal with the smuggling of guns and in fact we have reasserted our commitment, along with the United States. And in fact our IBET teams, for example, deal with smuggling of guns from the United States to Canada, and vice versa, although I think it's fair to say, Commissioner, much of the gun smuggling is U.S.-Canada.

And in fact our IBET teams are addressing the question of gun smuggling. I think both countries, through the Cross Border Crime Forum have identified gun smuggling as an important shared issue. And of course organized crime--and the Commissioner can comment on this if he wishes--is a major challenge for all of us: for law enforcement agencies across the country; for us, as a country; as it is in the United States, Western Europe, South East Asia, and elsewhere. And we work not only here at home but around the world, in partnership with key law enforcement agencies, including agencies like INTERPOL, to try and stop the flow of whatever illegal goods, the trafficking of guns, the trafficking of people, the trafficking of drugs, all of which are part, unfortunately, of the daily activities of organized crime.

(0920)

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But Madam Minister, wouldn't $100 million go a long way to combating some of these organized crime activities, rather than putting it into a (inaudible) exercise that does very little to do anything?

Hon. Anne McLellan: In fact, the firearms program, and you and I have had this discussion before and you and I will disagree, and that's fine. We live in a democracy. I actually think the firearms program is an important part of an overall approach to safety and crime prevention and I think that has been proven over and over again. And while there are those who can choose to disagree, that's their right, but I think it's fair to say that part of the control of our gun control program is anti-smuggling initiatives.

The Chair: Time is up, so

[SNIP]

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you all for being here.

(0930)

Mr. William Baker: Yes, they are. We had indicted in the briefings that were held as per the minister's announcement in May of 2004 that we would bring the global cost of the Canada Firearms Centre cost down to no more than $85 million. The budget, as set out in the Report on Plans and Priorities for this year, is $82.3 million, and I'm very confident that we will deliver the program within that.

A second part of the minister's announcement indicated that the costs of the registration-of-firearms component of the program, bearing in mind that many people call it the registry, but registration is a small part of what we do, that expense would not exceed $25 million per year. This year, the budget allows for $15.7 million for registration, and that includes employee benefits.

In terms of revenues, they offset our costs roughly 20%. In any given year, they're $15 million to $20 million, depending on where we are in the cycle of renewals. For the coming year, it'll be offset. Now, of course, revenues are credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not to the program, so they're reported separately.

Mr. Joe Comartin: To follow that through, the $82.3 million that's going to be spent this year, you're expecting somewhere around $15 million to $20 million in revenues? The net cost is somewhere in the low sixties or high sixties?

Mr. William Baker: It would be in the $60-million range, somewhere in the sixties. It's kind of difficult to project revenues from one year to the next because it's somewhat activity-driven.

Mr. Joe Comartin: For 2004-05, what would the net figure be?

Mr. William Baker: In 2004, the budget was $100.3 million, and the revenues for that year were $11.2 million, so we were looking at roughly a $90-million net expenditure on the Firearms Centre. Of course, here I'm talking about the direct costs of the centre. There are some costs incurred by other organizations that we report separately.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Right.

[SNIP]

Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Thank you.

My question is for the minister. I know in the past when debate around the gun registry was first starting, there seemed to have been the perception out there amongst Canadians that there's almost a culture at the department, whether it was with the Department of Justice or your department now, against law-abiding gun owners, and the legal use of firearms. That would include, I would suggest, the Canadian border service agencies and park wardens. The department seems averse to allowing law-abiding Canadians to legally use firearms.

My question is on something specific. I've been asked by a number of my constituents with concerns in recent weeks--and I brought this to your attention on April 22 when I sent you a letter--individuals who own a certain classification of firearms, we know there's non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited fire-arms, they are legally licensed to own them, and are legally acquired fire-arms, have been told in my case--I'm from New Brunswick--by the New Brunswick CFO that they can no longer transport those firearms. Many of them over the course of the summer will be planning to go to gun ranges to use those or different competitions. I know two of the individuals who brought it to my attention are upstanding citizens, community volunteers, and law-abiding people in every sense. They've taken the steps to comply with the law but they're being told by the chief firearms officer for New Brunswick that they can no longer transport their legally-owned, legally- licensed, and legally-acquired firearm.

I know this committee was assured when we were discussing Bill C-10 and amendments to the Firearms Act that there would be no real substantive impact on the rights of firearm owners. Is this a misinterpretation by the CFO for New Brunswick, or what's going on at the bureaucratic level that is preventing these people from transporting their firearms?

Hon. Anne McLellan: Thank you.

I was recently in New Brunswick and this issue was brought to my attention by a gun owner and someone who has worked very closely with us over the years in terms of participating in our user group and other things. I promised him that I would take this issue up with Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker, perhaps you could respond to Mr. Moore this morning.

(1040)

Mr. William Baker: Thank you.

What we're referring to here are prohibited long guns, rifles. Under the amendment bill to the Firearms Act, Bill C-10A, which received Royal Assent in May of 2003, there was a provision there which only came into effect in April of this year that removed from the owners--and there's some 6,000 owners of these prohibited rifles and long guns--removed their ability to fire them at a range. This was part of the design of the act.

I can tell you that notwithstanding that there are, to be exact, 6,400 of these firearms in the country, last year, just over 300 requests were received by the Canada Firearms Centres and the CFOs across the country to actually transport these for purposes or use the mono-range. Indeed, the opportunity to fire these prohibited long guns is no longer there.

Mr. Rob Moore: I guess, Mr. Baker, and Madam Minister, that's what I was afraid your response would be, because you have to understand that you have been assuring Canadians over the past 10 years, and legal gun owners, that you're respecting their rights. To me this is akin to someone being allowed a licence to drive an automobile, allowed to purchase that automobile, legally owns it, and is one day told that they cannot leave their driveway with it. A slippery slope.

We know when this came in that Alan Rock said only the police and the military should own firearms. There are legitimate concerns out there. These are law-abiding citizens, and I don't understand why they can't take these firearms...where else are they supposed to use them if they can't go to a legally licensed range? I think it's going to beg the question--I know it has, and I'm bringing this to your attention--among Canadians and citizens in my riding, who is next? If it's this small group, as you said first, is it going to be some other group next that is told you can no longer use your own property, your legally acquired property? This is a grave concern of mine.

I just want to mention also, was this ever raised in committee, that the impact of that change through Bill C-10A would have an impact on individual's rights to use their own property? This is a major concern.

The Chair: A brief response.

Mr. William Baker: Certainly.

First of all, I agree with you, this is not a question about individuals who are not otherwise law-abiding. That's not the issue here. It was altered in committee well before 2003 when the bill was originally going through the House. This is simply a function of the design of the act.
As the Commissioner of Firearms, I am obliged to apply the act as it's designed. This is not a discretionary decision that was reached recently, it was simply acknowledging the change in the act, and the implications of that, remove that ability. Owners of these prohibited firearms can still use them in limited ways, but you're right, they can no longer fire them on a range.

Mr. Rob Moore: I would suggest, they were not given a heads-up of this. From my take on what experts are telling me in my own riding, this is an interpretation of the act that bureaucrats are making within your department, and they were in no way given a heads-up. There was no lead-up to this, or concern among any of them. It's just one day the CFO tells them, “Our interpretation of the act is you can no longer use....” If you live in a suburban neighbourhood and you can't transport your firearm to a range, you're being told, “You cannot use it”. I can't contemplate how else they could use it legally. So this is a problem.

The Chair: Did you have a brief response?

Mr. William Baker: Just very quickly.

People were alerted to this change earlier this spring, when the minister announced the regulations on Bill C-10A. I acknowledge, though, that they would have been given just several weeks, and for some gun owners, they would not be normally following ministerial announcements on regulations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

[SNIP]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I just want to make a note to Madam Minister that you were before this committee when Bill C-10A amendments were being debated. You assured us that these would not materially change anything. And you didn't answer my colleague's question as to what changed. We were told these were intended to save money, etc., and now we find out that they do change things for firearms a great deal, and I'm disappointed you didn't answer that question.

I want to raise another issue with the whole ports police that was cancelled quite some time ago. I don't have time to read some of the quotations from the newspapers that make it quite clear that organized criminal activity--smuggling, drugs, counterfeiting products--are all coming in through our marine ports. I realize you said, “Well, we're pouring more money into this”. You have known about this problem for years and years and nothing was done, and now you hold over our head that if this budget isn't passed the money won't be there for all that. You've had plenty of time to address this.

The RCMP do not have adequate resources to fill the gaps at the ports. I read one report where 3% of the containers are checked that enter Canada. We allow $100 million to be spent on CFC, and yet we let real police and public safety priorities like port security go underfunded. I do not understand this. We've known about this problem for years. Why?

(1055)

Hon. Anne McLellan: In terms of port security, the commissioner can provide you with substantial detail, but let me say that we have presently in Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver special teams that are working in the ports. We will expand that program to how many new ports?

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Well, we're going to increase the complement in these.

Hon. Anne McLellan: Okay. Well, I'll let the commissioner explain the new resources that are available. I think the general point you raise around the fact that we always, I think, can assess the resources we need to protect Canadians and legal business, it isn't static. Can we use more resources? Yes, we can. Can we do more? Will technology make us more efficient, but the technology is expensive? Yes, absolutely. All of that is true. We use the resources in the most effective way possible. We have a wide array of measures and programs, including our gun control program, that help assure the collective security of Canadians. For me, it's not one or the other. It is working on all key fronts in the most sensible way possible, at any given time.

But maybe, Commissioner, you would like to add to the issues around the port security, and then maybe Alain would like to add something about the screening and the percentage we screen, and so on.

Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Thank you, Minister. Really it is only recently for the first time in the history of investigating ports that we have become very pro-active in dealing with organized crime at the ports. Historically, with all due respect to the port's police, they were not mainly focused on organized crime, they were doing other things, but they were not mainly focused on organized crime. Today what we have is a specific team that are at the major ports dealing in an integrated way, we don't have just the RCMP, we have the local police, the provincial, we have CBSA, the other partners concentrating specifically on organized crime. It is a top priority for law enforcement.

We are getting more resources but I have to admit, we don't have enough resources to do all the work that's there but for the first time we are actually, specifically targeting the ports as a key entry point or a key location of major organized crime activity.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you. I know where you can get more resources because of ineffective things.
Madam Minister, can I just challenge the minister on one point? You know that she said using resources in the most cost-effective way possible. There is a low-risk activity occurring right now at our border crossings, you've got customs officers spending a huge amount of time checking legally owned firearms coming across the border with hunters, 450,000 I think in the last three years. These are low-risk activities, how can you tell us that you're spending the money in a most effective way. That is not true.

We don't even check to see if those firearms ever leave the country. They come in and if it's so important that we track it, we never even determine whether they leave. You know, we're spending millions of dollars doing that. That to me is a low-risk activity when in fact we should be tightening up our ports. So I'm willing to challenge you on that.

Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Breitkreuz, I would presume, I hope, that you are not suggesting that our border agents would not ask whether someone is bringing a firearm into this country and the basis on which they're bringing it into the country. I would think most Canadians would be shocked and dismayed if they thought we were not asking those questions and we were not asking where people were going with those firearms and what their purpose was. Because that is, I think a key component of what Canadians expect around a culture of safety and responsibility.

Alain, I don't know whether you want to add anything in that regard.

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: I would say, first of all we don't know ahead of time what we're talking about so we have to look and ask those questions.

Just if I may, in terms of deploying resources from what you call low-risk area to high-risk areas, specifically the ports, we are receiving four million containers every year in our main marine ports. We have instigated a system called ACI where 24 hours before a container is even loaded to a ship that comes in our direction, we are informed about it and we are issuing regularly no load orders because we have concerns with some of those containers. So we have a program in place and we are doing those analyses using a risk algorithm that is now the best in the world.

If you look at it from a perspective of the number of computations that is made on each one of those four million containers, we're making close to a billion computations in order to identify containers that would be high-risk so that we don't have to open them all. On top of it we've developed gamma ray technology in our ports so that we can basically scan them and identify those that we would want to look at more closely. So our resources are really deployed in a manner that respects or is in line with the risk analysis that we are doing.

(1100)