Roy Cullen

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Not at all.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I know the member for Windsor West has been a strong advocate of border issues and, although not terribly partisan, he is very outspoken and is a strong supporter of measures at the border. I should point out that the member for New Brunswick Southwest talked about ministers making statements in the House. Members opposite always have an opportunity to put a question to ministers in question period as well but I do not recall many questions on this topic in the last little while.

The member for Windsor West talked about the lack of investment in infrastructure. Perhaps he has forgotten a few of the facts. He knows full that for phase two of the Windsor-Detroit border initiative, although I do not have the figure in front of me, it is some $600 million. He knows full well that the Canada Border Services Agency will be hiring another 270 officers for our border. He also knows there is a very active binational panel looking at different options to put in another crossing at Windsor-Detroit.

I think his comment that the government has not invested in infrastructure at the border is somewhat misleading to Canadians.

Is he aware of the program that has been mounted through the Canadian consuls general in the United States to raise this issue in the United States on behalf of Canadians?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Saint-Jean for his comments. I feel he has raised some very useful points.

We need to clarify that the government has been very active on this particular issue. There were some timelines mentioned earlier in the House referring to this initiative of the United States. In fact, the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act was passed in the United States in December 2004, and that mandated the department of homeland security to implement a system where foreign nationals and U.S. citizens would present a passport when entering the United States.

I should point out that we have had much success on other issues. Canada is the only country to be exempted from the U.S. visitor program which requires fingerprinting. We were able to successfully lobby for that. The government has been on this particular issue for some time at the official level and at the political level. It is not an easy issue, but I thank the member for his constructive comments. He is right on when he says that it is American citizens who have as much at stake with this as Canadian citizens.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, we need to make sure that Canadians understand this is not an issue that has suddenly emerged as something that the government is dealing with at the last minute. This was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister and her counterpart, Mr. Chertoff, in Texas back in March. I cannot speak for the Prime Minister, but I very much expect that at those same meetings the Prime Minister raised it with President Bush. There have been ongoing discussions over many months with the U.S. authorities looking at options that would be different from the requirement for passports.

I should point out that the U.S. government is asking for the same treatment of its own U.S. citizens. Up until now U.S. citizens travelling, let us say, to the Caribbean, Bermuda or Mexico could leave and come back without passports. The U.S. government has said that will not be acceptable in the future and that everybody coming back into the United States, whether they be a U.S. citizen or some other citizen, would be required under this scenario to carry a passport.

This government has worked very closely with the U.S. government on a whole range of border issues. We have reached many agreements with it. I think the government is still hopeful that there is another option that would be possible. We really want a bit more time to look at different options that are quite technical in nature and require some testing, et cetera.

Would the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla argue for the status quo? I know from our perspective the status quo would be fine, although we have a shared objective with the United States in terms of security. I wonder what alternatives the member sees to the proposal that is currently laid out by the U.S. government.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that members opposite had been commenting on the gun registry. I am wondering if they perhaps were omitting a number of important facts. For example, did the member opposite omit the fact that law enforcement officers are making inquiries every day to the gun registry? In fact, I wonder if the member would know that the number is 5,000 inquiries per day.

Perhaps the members opposite are implying that law enforcement officers are sitting around playing with their computers and not really doing this as a productive exercise. What I am reading from that is that law enforcement officers are finding the gun registry to be of some value.

I wonder if the member opposite and other members that have commented on the gun registry have talked about the fact that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police wholeheartedly endorsed the gun registry and, in fact, the Canadian Professional Police Association, the rank and file police officers, also have endorsed the gun registry.

I wonder if members opposite realize that thousands of affidavits have been filed by the firearms centre to prosecute criminals and people that are illegally using handguns.

I wonder if members opposite realize that some 8,000 individuals have been denied the licensing of firearms because they are not eligible because of some problem in their past or some current problem.

I wonder why members opposite have not commented on the fact that the annual costs of the gun registry have been managed down to $15 million a year.

Perhaps Canadians would like to know these facts. The gun registry is now being managed properly and is getting results. Did members opposite forget to mention these facts to Canadians in this House today?

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member gets his information. There is a process under way. Justice Iacobucci is consulting with the stakeholders at large.

I should point out that we have made considerable progress in the rollout of our response to this tragic legacy and in particular with the ADR process. Since the beginning of the year, we have seen a significant rise in the movement of cases.

The ADR process is a culturally based and holistic way of providing additional choices to former students seeking compensation for sexual abuse, physical abuse and wrongful confinement. It is a voluntary process that provides former students with a fair, timely and supportive option to settle claims outside of the courts.

The ADR process will continue to operate for those students who have chosen that option to pursue their claims, and participation in the ADR process will not prejudice the ability of former students to take advantage of benefits which may arise from the discussions being led by the Hon. Frank Iacobucci.

This government is committed, as I said, to finding fair solutions for resolving the legacy of residential schools. We will continue to make refinements to the ADR process and to our overall approach.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the question put to the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Calgary Centre-North, regarding the resolution of residential school claims.

Bringing closure to the legacy of residential schools lies at the heart of real progress toward reconciliation and renewing relationships between the government and aboriginal peoples who attended these schools and their families and communities.

Over the last year, advocacy from many sources, most notably from the Assembly of First Nations, has brought into focus the need to recognize the adverse impacts of Indian residential schools.

On May 30, the Government of Canada appointed a federal representative to lead discussions with legal counsel for former students, the Assembly of First Nations, legal counsel for the church entities and other involved parties.

Reaching a timely, lasting and fair solution of the legacy of residential schools is our goal. The federal representative is working on an expedited basis with legal counsel for former students, the Assembly of First Nations and legal counsel for the churches. These discussions are exploring ways to recognize the residential school experience of all former students, monetary or otherwise, including support for the healing that needs to continue to take place.

The Hon. Frank Iacobucci is to provide recommendations as soon as possible, but no later than March 31, 2006, on a settlement package that will address payments to former students, a truth and reconciliation process, and community based healing and commemoration, as well as the continuation of an appropriate alternative dispute resolution process to address serious abuse.

I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary Centre-North must have been pleased to learn of Mr. Iacobucci's appointment, and of the mandate given to him.

On April 11, 2005, the hon. member spoke in this House of the need for restorative justice and the need to work with legal counsel for former students to address the legacy of Indian residential schools. These are, in fact, key components of the government's approach, as was announced on May 30.

More troubling, however, is the hon. member's ongoing preoccupation with the dismantling of the ADR process, the alternative dispute resolution process. The government cannot and will not abandon those former students who have chosen the ADR process to pursue their abuse claims. During the period of the discussions led by Mr. Iacobucci, the ADR process will continue to operate for those former students who have chosen that option to pursue their claims for physical and sexual abuse and wrongful confinement.

Clearly this government is committed to the fair and timely resolution of residential school claims and to implementing the necessary changes to its approach to engender broader reconciliation with aboriginal people.

[Public Safety, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite fails to understand that the gun registry in Canada is working very efficiently and very effectively.

In fact, law enforcement is making about 3,000 inquiries per day to the gun registry. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supports it. The Canadian Professional Police Association supports it. It is helping with respect to affidavits for criminal prosecutions. The licensing system has precluded somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 Canadians getting firearms who otherwise would have firearms but are not eligible because of various factors.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, even though what the member has raised is not dealt with specifically in the bill, I dealt with it in my remarks and I think it is an important question.

Of course the issue around bank mergers still has to be debated and decided but we are not there yet. However there will come a day, I am sure, where banks will come forward and look to merge. I think this is where we as parliamentarians, in looking at the public interest aspects, have to deal with the question of the access and service that consumers will have, especially in small rural communities. In a city like Toronto, if the local branch of the CIBC closes, one can go to the TD Bank or the Royal Bank. There are a lot of options in large urban centres but in parts of rural Canada this could be a very big problem

For example, if a merger occurred between, let us say, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Montreal, in one small town in Saskatchewan that merged entity would be seen as having too dominant a position and the Competition Bureau would say that has to be divested. So now we are down to maybe one bank in that town. We know that if consumers and small business operators do not have choices they are sort of hung out to dry.

The question I think the House of Commons and Senate banking committee will be wrestling with when a merger proposal does come forward is: What does this do and how does it enhance consumer access to quality products and services?

As I indicated in my remarks, there is one interesting twist to this. Before, when we dealt with bank mergers back in 1998 I guess it was, the banks were not prepared to deal with the question of, if there was a divestiture in a certain town, what would happen. However today the banks realize that if there is going to be a divestiture in a small town in Saskatchewan, or in Ontario, or in New Brunswick, they need to have a plan and they need to be able to put those assets up for sale. Smaller banks, regional banks, credit unions, the Laurentian Bank, the National Bank, the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, banks like that, have come forward and said that they would be interested in picking up those assets.

In terms of the process of bank mergers, I think the challenge will be to align all that up simultaneously so that we have comfort as parliamentarians that in fact some other bank will pick up that branch that might be divested. I think that will be a very serious question.

In my riding, as it is, I am sure, in the riding of the member for Blackstrap, even though the banks have responded to some extent in a greater capacity in terms of small business lending, there is still a lot of angst out there that the banks are not being as helpful as they could be to small business. I think that will be a question on the table as well. By consolidating and by bulking up the bank what is that going to do in terms of capital that might be available for small business? I think that will be an important question as well.

We are not there yet but it is an important question. I am sure it will be in front of this Parliament sometime in the next year or so. I think the member has raised an important question that we will have to deal with and deal with very carefully.

[Bank Act, October 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for her question. She is asking an extremely important question about the rights of citizens and consumers with regard to confidential information.

I am not sure the bill deals specifically with the question of privacy provisions but I do know that the protections under the Privacy Act are quite demanding.

The member might recall problems that occurred when one of the banks was processing data in the United States and it could have come under the purview of the Patriot Act. I have been told on pretty good authority that the problem has been rectified. However it is a constant challenge. We do know there is a lot of identity fraud, people purporting to be someone they are not. This is why when we go to banking machines we are told to protect our code, but even with all of that people will try to break that system such as computer hackers.

We should be quite proud of the strength and the progressiveness of the banking sector in Canada. When it comes to building firewalls and protecting data, generally they do a very good job, but it is a work in progress for which, I suspect, they need to be constantly vigilant.

Protecting the privacy of Canadians is paramount and I am not sure this legislation deals with that specifically. The member is right, it is a very important point and something the government is seized with as well.