Roy Cullen

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the member for Nanaimo--Alberni did not take the opportunity to speak up and join me in a chorus to argue that the government needs to respond to the forestry workers in Canada with some help. I am sure there are many sawmills in the member's riding that are in terrible shape and many forestry workers who are badly affected. In fact, I recall his colleague, the member from Vancouver Island, who is no longer in the House, argued very strenuously for a relief package. I know the member for Nanaimo--Alberni did as well, but I am saddened by his silence on this issue in the House.

However, let me come back to the points that he has raised. First, I am glad he acknowledged that the gun registry cost $159 million to develop and build. That is the figure the member quoted in the House. I know members on the other side have talked about a much bigger number to develop the gun registry. In fairness to the member, we know that is not right. It is higher than that, but it certainly is not as high as many of the members here purport.

The point is that in finance and economics, there is a concept called sunk cost. If we build a house and it costs too much to build, but now it is energy efficient and it is what we can afford, do we burn the house down because it cost us too much? Of course not. We look at what that house does for us today. What I am saying is that house, that gun registry, is costing less than $20 million a year. It is supported by every police association in Canada and they are making use of it day in and day out.

Regarding child care, if that is the way the member for Nanaimo--Alberni feels, that this is a test of the Canadian public to their child care proposal, I wonder if his government plans to put that particular proposal to the floor of the House. I not sure, based on what I heard from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, that they support the $1,200 a year baby bonus scheme. I am pretty sure that members on this side do not support it. I am quite sure the NDP does not support it. If he is saying that Canadians support it, does his government plan to table that in the House the way it stands now? I think they would be sadly disappointed with the result.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like first to thank the voters in Etobicoke North for expressing their confidence in me again in the election on January 23. It is a great honour and trust that they have bestowed upon me, for the fifth time I might add. I will respect that trust and work at my utmost to represent them well here in the House of Commons.

Let me take this opportunity as well to thank the many volunteers who worked with me on the election campaign. Their efforts are very greatly appreciated.

I would like also to express my grief and sorrow in relation to two recent and separate incidents, first to the friends and family of Bhupinder Singh Khroad and Ravinder Jit Kaur Khroad who were tragically involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident recently. I extend my thoughts and prayers to all of them as they mourn their loss.

To the friends and relatives of the four Canadian soldiers killed on Saturday in Afghanistan: Corporal Matthew Dinning, Lieutenant William Turner, Bombardier Myles Mansell and Corporal Randy Payne. We all share their grief and can assure them that these brave men did not die in vain. They gave unselfishly to their country for the cause of freedom and the struggle against terrorism.

Let me turn now to the Speech from the Throne. It is 12 pages in length and is not exactly a difficult read. It lays out five priorities of the Conservative government. I understand well the idea of focusing on a few issues, but this, it seems to me, to be taking it to new limits.

At any rate, the five priorities that the Conservative party touted during its election campaign—along with many other promises that did not appear in the Speech from the Throne—do not offer the Canadian public a very sound official policy.

Let me cite just three examples. One is to reduce the GST. It is well known that it is three times more beneficial to the economy to have income tax cuts of equivalent amounts. That was the Liberal plan and was tabled in the House. Now the Conservative government will reduce those income tax reductions to implement the cut in the GST. We know this is not good for Canadians. It may be politically popular, but it is not the best solution for Canadians.

The Conservative Party approach to child care is misguided, in my judgment. Its plan to provide the parents of each young child with $1,200 annually, while politically attractive to some, does not constitute a child care program. It is more like the old baby bonus scheme which was disbanded long ago. The Liberal government replaced it in the 1990s with the national child benefit. The national child benefit program is delivering about $10 billion annually to medium and modest income families. The $1,200 could be added to this and the child care agreements negotiated with the provinces and territories by the Liberal government should be respected. This would offer real child care support for working parents.

While I support tougher action against crime and criminals, and in fact the Liberal government tabled a series of responses to the plague of gun violence before the last Parliament was dissolved for the election, scrapping the gun registry would be a serious mistake. The gun registry, although certainly not a panacea to deal with gun violence, is supported by Canada's police chiefs and also by the Canadian Professional Police Association. These are the rank and file police officers. Law enforcement officers across the country are making 6,000 inquiries per day to the gun registry. Surely this is telling us that the police find the gun registry to be a useful tool.

The annual cost to operate the gun registry is now at a level of $20 million per year or less. While I acknowledge the high cost to develop this system, which has been exaggerated in the House and elsewhere, the system is now developed, in place and is costing less than $20 million a year.

Likewise, tougher sanctions against criminals in and of themselves will not be enough. We need to build on our investments in the community based national crime prevention program and programs like breaking the cycle, which operates in my riding of Etobicoke North. This program helps young people extricate themselves from gangs, and it is working.

Ministers in Prime Minister Harper's cabinet have been told to stay on message and stick to the five priorities laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

As the Liberal party critic for natural resources, I have to wonder how Mr. Harper's policy on staying on message will play out. Furthermore, the terms “natural resources” and “agriculture” appear only once in the Speech from the Throne, which includes no clear ideas on either of these subjects.

This is pretty unbelievable, given that natural resources and related industries represent 13% of Canada's GNP and provide jobs for nearly a million Canadians. Contrary to popular belief, these jobs are located in both rural and urban areas.

We can only hope that the budget about to be tabled will take into account the major impact of the natural resources sector on the entire Canadian population.

Coming back to the focussed messaging that Conservative ministers apparently are working under, what will this mean for the Minister of Natural Resources when he meets with Canada's mining industry? Will he describe the party's plan for child care or will he be permitted to dialogue on the severe labour shortages looming in Canada's mining industry and the need for incentives to encourage more exploration and development in Canada's mining industry?

When the Minister of Natural Resources meets with representatives from Canada's forest industry, will he describe to them the get tough on crime initiatives proposed by the Conservative government, or will he be permitted to dialogue with them about what his government will do to resolve the long-standing softwood lumber dispute with the United States and what action the Conservative government will take to ease the burden on the softwood lumber industry, its workers and the communities affected? Our Liberal government had announced a relief package of some $1.5 billion, as interim assistance, until the dispute was finally settled in Canada's favour. Now we have some ministers on the government side saying that we are not going to win this dispute. Shame on them.

When the Minister of Natural Resources meets with the energy dialogue group, will he describe to them the proposed reduction in the GST, or will the Prime Minister allow the minister to explore with them the need for an energy strategy or national energy framework for Canada? Will he be able to discuss how the government will address such critical issues as energy conservation and energy efficiency? Will the minister be provided enough slack to discuss the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska pipeline projects, or will he digress into one of the other five priorities of the government, being very careful of course not to stray off message?

When the Minister of National Resources meets with environmental groups, will he discuss the government's new accountability package? Will he be able to respond to their questions when they ask what Canada's plans are to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and how those objectives will mesh with the development of the oil sands in Alberta? Will this type of discussion be permitted, or will special clearance be required from the Prime Minister if he wants to proceed in that way?

For the sake of our country and for all Canadians I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will be allowed to stray into these very important areas which, although not a priority obviously for the Conservative government, need the attention of all of us.

I look forward to the upcoming budget and other initiatives of the government. What was contained in the throne speech was pretty thin gruel and not enough to go on.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo probably knows that the Deputy Prime Minister and this government are also concerned about sentencing and parole. The Deputy Prime Minister has asked the justice committee to do a review of sentencing and parole. In fact, the committee has agreed to set up a subcommittee to do exactly that.

Unfortunately, we are going into an election and that subcommittee was scheduled to start in mid-December. Now it will have to begin following the election, but the government is committed to reviewing sentencing and parole. Now it will have to happen after the election.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her attention to this matter. Privacy concerns would usually constrain me from directly discussing the specifics of any individual offender's case. In this instance, however, we know through the media that the offender in question served a 10 month sentence in a provincial institution and was thereafter released, as required by law.

I must point out that the administration of justice through the police, crown attorneys and the courts, as well as the custody of offenders serving sentences of less than two years, is a provincial responsibility.

As I have said, we are aware of the recent release that disturbed several communities in British Columbia. It is recognized also that such occurrences can be traumatic and we particularly extend our sympathy to the victims and their families who have been directly affected by this offender's criminal activities.

As the hon. opposition member surely realizes, preventing recidivism among sexual offenders requires a multidimensional approach.

Over the past several years, the federal government has introduced several legislative and policy initiatives to deal with sexual and other violent offenders.

An offender can be declared a long term offender at the time of sentencing, meaning that the offender can receive up to 10 years' community supervision in addition to a prison term of at least two years. An offender can also be declared a dangerous offender at the time of sentencing, meaning that the offender can be held in prison indefinitely and be subject to lifetime supervision. Sexual and other violent offenders can be detained, i.e. not released from custody, until the end of their sentences.

Where the Correctional Service of Canada has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate who is about to be released will pose a threat to any person, the Correctional Service of Canada is required to give the police, prior to release, all information that is relevant to that perceived threat. A national flagging system is in place that can be used by prosecutors to flag on CPIC individuals who are potential future dangerous offenders.

Judges may also, under certain circumstances--for example, violent offences--delay parole eligibility until one-half of the sentence. Police or any other person, on reasonable grounds, can ask the courts to apply a peace bond to sexual and other violent offenders in the community with a wide range of conditions to restrict their movements, report to police, or reside at a particular location, for example.

A national screening system is in place that allows the criminal record history to be used to screen for persons seeking child-sensitive positions or positions of trust.

These measures are an efficient and comprehensive approach to deal with high risk sexual offenders.

This being said, public safety remains our number one priority. This government will continue to look at innovative measures to enhance the correctional and parole system.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague from the Conservative Party. I was under the impression that he had some experience in government and that he would have known how government operates. I had the distinct honour and pleasure to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the former minister of finance in 1999-2001 and I know how he operates. I know the kind of schedule he keeps and the kind of focus he has on the large macro-economic picture. I know the time that is spent on building a budget and looking at the various analyses leading up to a budget. I know how he deals with issues of fiscal policy.

Once a budget is developed and presented in the House of Commons, once the legislation is written up and the ways and means motions are prepared, then the minister of finance looks to his ministers to implement those programs and services within the resources that are allocated.

The minister of finance cannot be expected to be running around a $180 billion operation checking to see whether every bit of money that is spent is in accordance with government policy and Treasury Board policy. It is not an operation like a local garage. The owner and operator of a garage would know how every cent is spent, but the minister of finance is in charge of a $180 billion a year organization.

I went to a lot of the meetings in 1999-2001 and this item was never on the radar, nor should it have been because that is not the role of the minister of finance. The member opposite should know how the government operates.

[Citizens' Advisory Committee Awareness Week, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Correctional Service Canada and communities across the country are celebrating Citizens' Advisory Committee Awareness Week.

Citizens' advisory committees have been part of the correctional process for more than 25 years. All federal penitentiaries and parole offices are advised by nearly 600 citizens on such committees. Citizens' advisory committees help enhance public security in Canada by strengthening the bonds between the communities and the correctional system.

I would like to encourage all members of Parliament to join me in recognizing and congratulating those who contribute as members of 106 citizens' advisory committees across Canada.

[Bank Act, November 23rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-57 at third reading.

In budget 2005 the government committed to introduce the proposals in this bill, which now fulfill our government's commitment to bring the governance standards for financial institutions up to the levels adopted in 2001 for other federally incorporated companies. Bill C-57 also proposes to update certain governance standards that are unique to financial institutions.

I am told by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that the members on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance worked very constructively and collaboratively on this initiative. We want to thank them for doing that.

There is little doubt of the important role that financial institutions play in the lives of Canadians. They provide services above and beyond what we most often think of as banking services, services such as chequing and savings accounts, and mortgages.

Financial institutions, though, are much more than that. For example, they provide the capital necessary for new or existing businesses. They sell insurance and can administer estates, trusts and agency contracts. In addition, they play a key role in helping governments and corporations to raise capital, as well as offering individuals an opportunity to invest in stocks, bonds and other securities.

The financial services sector is more than a provider of services. It is a critical part of the infrastructure of our economy, employing over 600,000 Canadians with a yearly payroll of over $35 billion. I can say that where I come from in Toronto, the financial services sector is a hugely critical employer in the business activity in the area. Let us not forget also that the financial services sector contributes approximately $13 billion in taxes to all orders of government.

I think everyone would agree that for Canada to continue its economic success, we must think beyond our borders. The same is true of Canadian businesses such as financial institutions. Let us face it, the reality is that we are operating in a global context and in global capital markets, but in order to compete in such an increasingly competitive global marketplace, the financial services sector needs to have a modern and up to date regulatory framework.

It is in this spirit that the government has taken action in recent years to ensure that financial institutions have the up to date regulatory framework they need to compete in today's global economy. In fact, this framework is reviewed every five years. Bill C-57 builds on those initiatives. It equips financial institutions with the modern governance tools that they need to compete in a global economy.

I would like now to quickly outline the five main elements contained in this bill. First, the financial institutions statutes recognize the importance of an effective board of directors. Bill C-57 contains proposals to clarify the role of directors in carrying out their important functions, for example, by explicitly allowing for a due diligence defence and clarifying the conflict of interest rules. I am particularly proud to see that. My first private member's bill called for the defence of due diligence for directors of corporations in Canada incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Second, shareholders have certain rights, such as the right to participate in the major decisions of a financial institution in which they have an interest. The proposed legislation enhances those rights. For example, once this bill is passed, shareholders would be permitted electronic participation in meetings using technology such as video conferencing.

Third, Bill C-57 recognizes the importance of good governance in the well-being of a financial institution. As such, the government's framework needs to be kept up to date with best practices in this area.

Fourth, the legislation proposes to strengthen a number of governance elements in the regulatory framework, including improving the flow of information to the regulator. It also harmonizes various governance standards within and across the financial institution statutes.

The fifth element relates to changes in the policy holder governance framework for insurance companies. These changes would work to increase disclosure in respect of participating in adjustable life insurance policies.

We do not have time to go into any more detail on this particular piece of legislation, but it is an important piece of legislation that would affirm the importance of our financial institutions in Canada and would give them the tools necessary to compete in this global economy.

[Air-India, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a report entitled “Lessons to be Learned”, as completed by the hon. Bob Rae. This report advises the federal government on outstanding questions with respect to the bombing of Air-India flight 182.

On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, I want to thank Mr. Rae and his team for their excellent work on this report.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member for Toronto--Danforth began his remarks by citing this as an historic occasion in the House. That is somewhat grandiose. It might be historic because the motion before us is flawed in many respects.

The member for Toronto--Danforth knows full well, or he should know full well, that our government could not possibly accept this motion. The Prime Minister and our government have been profoundly clear that Canadians need an opportunity to see the second and final report of Justice Gomery. On the basis of that Canadians will decide. The government has said that it would call an election within 30 days of that happening.

How could our government now conceivably say that we have reconsidered, that this motion avoids a Christmas election, when we have said, on a matter of principle, that we have to hear the results from Justice Gomery before we call an election?

The member for Toronto--Danforth talks about all the legislation and the good work the House could be doing, which could be forfeited. He knows full well that the government cannot accept the motion, at least he should know that.

A woman cannot be half pregnant. The government either has the confidence of the House or it does not. If those members have the courage of their convictions, they would put a motion before the House asking whether it has confidence in the government. However, they have not done that. They put forward a wishy-washy motion that is an insult and an affront to Canadians and the House.

I ask the member for Toronto--Danforth this. Why should we not wait for the good work of Justice Gomery to be completed so Canadians can judge that fully and then go into an election?

[Question No. 199, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows:

a) The following is a breakdown of possession only licences, POLs, that have expired within the last three years for which there has been no renewal. The numbers shown are directly related to the increase in the number of POLs issued five years ago, which are now due for renewal.

b) The government undertakes a number of activities to help firearms owners stay in compliance with the Firearms Act. Specifically:

--Ninety days prior to the expiration date of a POL, the Canada Firearms Centre mails the client a firearm licence application form which is pre-populated with client information and a notice reminding them that their licence is due to expire.

--If no application has been received 30 days prior to the expiration of the licence, a second reminder notice is mailed to the client.

If the firearm owner does not renew his/her POL, the Canada Firearms Centre takes action to initiate the lawful disposal of the firearms. Specifically,

--The Canada Firearms Centre begins the process to revoke any firearm registration certificates associated with that licence.

--A notice of refusal / revocation is sent to clients via registered mail, informing them of the revocation of their registration certificates, their appeal rights and the acceptable options for disposal of the affected firearms, such as transfer, deactivation, export or surrender to a police agency.

--A copy of the revocation notice is sent to the respective Chief Firearms Officer and the local police agency to ensure awareness and coordination.

If records indicate that the client possesses any or all of, an authorization to carry, ATC, special authority to possess, SAP, or authorization to transport, ATT, a separate notification is sent to the Chief Firearms Officer as a reminder that these permits should also be revoked.

If within 30 days, the Canada Firearms Centre receives no appeal request from the client, has no indication of lawful disposition of the client’s firearms, and all administrative measures have been exhausted, the matter is referred to the local police for their action.