Roy Cullen

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for over 130 years the RCMP has been trusted with protecting the people of this country from coast to coast to coast. The hon. member's motion undermines the RCMP's ability to do its job, without changing the government's vital obligation to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This contradiction is not acceptable.

I should remark and clarify, after the remarks by the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi, for whom I have every respect, that the government will be voting no to this motion. My remarks today outline the government's position and are addressed to the opposition parties who at every stage have sought to obstruct the commissioner of the RCMP from doing his job.

Since the government must continue to protect Canadians, I urge hon. members to support the right and responsibility of Commissioner Zaccardelli and his senior executives to make policing decisions for the good of our country. They should vote no to this motion.

Let me say at the outset that there is no reduction of RCMP resources in Quebec by even one officer. They were reorganized to improve efficiency. This motion is asking the House to vote, not for improvement, but for a worsening of the position. They are asking us to vote for inefficiency. I urge members on both sides of the House to defeat the motion.

Before going any further let me underscore what is at stake in this motion. The RCMP under the RCMP Act has the authority to manage our national police service and direct resources where they are needed most. Subsection 5(1) of the RCMP Act clearly states that it is the commissioner of the RCMP, under the direction of the minister, who has the control and management of the force and all matters connected therewith.

This motion cuts to the very heart of this responsibility. It undermines the legislative foundation of our national police service.

In addition to challenging the legislated authority of the commissioner of the RCMP, the passage of this motion would have a detrimental impact on Canadians. There would be a serious impact on public safety and the ability of the RCMP to deal with current and emerging priorities in Quebec; namely, organized crime, terrorism and the protection of our shared border with the United States.

Hon. members who support the motion put at risk the ability of the RCMP to address these priorities and are jeopardizing not only the safety of Quebec and Quebecers, but of all Canadians.

We all know the rule of law. The rule of law dictates that a minister may never direct the RCMP as to the investigation of criminality. Yet this is not the limit of our long convention and practice in this country. It is the first word of a tradition that holds the police apart from the power and politics of the day.

It is true by statute the minister does have the authority to direct the commissioner on certain matters, generally understood to be matters of strategic policy, but never day to day operations. The minister might, for example, instruct the commissioner to prioritize matters of national security affecting our airports. The minister might instruct the commissioner to develop new measures against organized crime. In this, the minister would be within the law and, importantly, within the conventions and propriety that shaped a relationship between the minister and the commissioner.

It is expected that the minister should use this authority sparingly and exercise careful judgment and restraint, recognizing that the commissioner has the statutory responsibility to manage the force and is in the best position to determine how the force can effectively and efficiently conduct its police work and criminal investigations.

The commissioner is a policing professional and his recommendation should be given the highest consideration. If the minister directs the RCMP to focus on organized crime, which is a large part of the force's federal mandate in the province of Quebec, it is the commissioner who knows best how to achieve this mandate in operational terms.

The commissioner's role is that of the expert and more. A commissioner of the RCMP is a distinguished figure. His advice should not be trifled with. He inherits the great traditions of the storied past and his professionalism today is a prized possession, his attempt to live up to that great example. He gives the government his best advice and takes pride in his work.

The commissioner has explained to parliamentarians that these detachments should be closed. He has told us that keeping them open would make Quebec less safe. He has explained that he needs the officers elsewhere. He has explained that even if he had more money, he would still close those detachments to focus on his priorities, including terrorism and organized crime.

I heard some members reject this advice at committee, and it is completely unacceptable. Frankly, I am appalled that members would dismiss the commissioner's advice. It is irresponsible and the worst kind of interference, and it should be stopped right here and right now. The commissioner has a serious job and members should let him do his job.

I have heard hon. colleagues on this matter. “If we can't do this”, they say, “why are we here?” This is one of the questions of philosophy, so while I will not settle anyone's existential angst, as members well know there is a broad expanse open to parliamentarians on RCMP matters. Not least of these is the budget process and all the associated financial procedures of Parliament.

Members will recall the substantial increases made of late to the RCMP budget. In fact, the commissioner pointed out that the budget of the RCMP in the last four or five years had gone from $2 billion a year to $3 billion a year. Some of these increases include provisions for funding for the integrated border enforcement teams and the provision five years ago of funds to introduce an additional 100 members at the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver airports. The funds voted by Parliament for the use of the force are diligently used, an important expression of the will of Parliament and parliamentarians. There is also the annual Report on Plans and Priorities, tabled in Parliament for the scrutiny of all members.

Members should also consider the legislative process. It should not be underrated in its impact upon the force. Parliamentarians make the very laws which it is the duty of the police force to enforce. In criminalizing certain behaviours, we make decisions of the utmost importance and of the greatest impact to those who uphold the law. When a law officer carries out his or her duties, he or she is an officer of the law, not of Parliament.

Parliament has a place of first importance in these matters, but not the place imagined by members opposite. We are all privileged to play on the parliamentary field. However, when it comes to the placement of detachments and their operational consequences, we stray from that field and go out of bounds. It is the worst kind of interference, and it should be stopped.

The professional advice of the force should be accepted and it is shocking to see it dismissed so readily out of hand. I will say it time and again until somebody listens. The commissioner said that reopening the detachments would make Quebec less safe. Officers will be taken from duties of greater importance. They will not come out of thin air. It is members opposite who must justify their position, not the government. If the wording of the motion said, “that this House now make Quebec less safe”, I wonder if my colleagues opposite would still support it.

That is exactly what any supporter of this motion will be saying. They will be saying, “Let us all join together and make Quebec less safe by ignoring the advice of the RCMP commissioner, by taking officers away from more important duties, stranding them in outposts in ridings X, Y and Z”. I expect them to say just that and in large numbers.

Since the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was established in Quebec in 1920, this police organization commonly known as “C” Division has always been professional, keeping up with the realities of its time. It has evolved in step with society while at the same time preserving its own culture and traditions.

Today, these police officers are recognized worldwide for their professionalism, integrity and respect for the right of every citizen to be different and equal.

In Quebec, the RCMP enforces the law in a strictly federal context. Its mandate is to prevent crime and protect Canadians at home and abroad. Its areas of activity include national security, organized crime, tobacco and alcohol smuggling, economic crimes, computer hacking, money laundering, and VIP protection, including for the Prime Minister and for foreign dignitaries.

Let me assure the House that the requirements of the RCMP in Quebec will continue to be reviewed to ensure that its federal enforcement mandate can be met. Let me underscore that the RCMP will honour all agreements and memoranda of understanding that are entered into with the Sûreté du Québec and its other partners. The RCMP will strategically pursue its efforts in all Quebec regions.

Finally, notwithstanding what is done today, the RCMP will continue to ensure that the people of Quebec and their communities are safe for the good of the province and the good of all Canadians.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Churchill for her comments and for the support of the NDP on the budget. It will put more money, beyond the $9 billion I referred to earlier for public safety and national security issues, into the hands of the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with public safety issues. I want to clarify a couple of points that were made by the member for Churchill.

First, the commissioner of the RCMP appeared before the committee and stated very clearly that in the last five or six years the annual budget allocation for the RCMP has gone from $2 billion a year to $3 billion a year. There will be more in budget 2005. I wanted to clarify that point.

Second, when the commissioner of the RCMP appeared before the committee, he said that this was not about funding. He said very clearly that this was not about budget, that this was about redeploying resources to utilize them more effectively to fight terrorism and organized crime.

He also said very clearly at the committee that this does not result in a reduction in head count with the RCMP in the province of Quebec. He was very clear and categorical on that point. Finally, he was very clear and categorical that this decision was required for the safety and security of Canadians and Quebeckers.

How can we in Parliament become instant experts on law enforcement? We have many opportunities in Parliament to deal with the RCMP through the estimates, through the budget, through the input into the Speech from the Throne, into the very parts of the Criminal Code that we enact and which the RCMP enforces.

There are many, many ways in which parliamentarians can become engaged. In fact, they engaged very clearly when they enacted the RCMP Act. It is an act of Parliament which states that the commissioner deals with the operational decisions of the RCMP. On the closure of detachments in Quebec, notwithstanding that they served a useful purpose, they had to be consolidated. That is what the RCMP commissioner said was necessary.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member for Niagara Falls has not been reading the budgets, because if he had been, he would know that this government has invested over $9 billion in public safety and security initiatives since 9/11. In fact, in budget 2005, if the members opposite would support it, there would be even more money for public security and the RCMP.

I want to raise the point that the members opposite severely miscast what this discussion is about. Those members are calling for the Parliament of Canada and a standing committee of Parliament to run the day to day affairs of the RCMP. This is not how it works. Parliament enacted the RCMP legislation, which gives the commissioner of the RCMP the authority to deal with the operational decisions of the RCMP, and that is what this is: when some detachments are closed to bring in a critical mass of officers so we can fight more effectively against organized crime and terrorism without having scattered little operations that have no impact.

This is what this is about. The commissioner of the RCMP came to the committee and spoke many times about why this was required for operational reasons to make Quebec and Canadians safer. That is exactly what he said, so how can the members opposite now become the instant experts on security and law enforcement? That is my question.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not see the relevance of this point. We are dealing with a motion having to do with the RCMP C Division closures. It is totally irrelevant, what the member just said.

[Award for Bravery, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a young hero from my riding of Etobicoke North.

On December 15, 2003 six-year-old Pierce Dundys was tobogganing with his grandfather, Peter Wood, in a local park when Mr. Wood was injured in a fall. As they were in an isolated area, Mr. Wood was forced to send young Pierce for help. This was made more serious because of deteriorating weather conditions.

As a direct result of Pierce's actions, Mr. Wood was rescued and has made a complete recovery. Pierce's remarkable demonstration of bravery has been recognized by local media.

On Sunday, May 15 Pierce Dundys will receive a citation from Toronto Police Services for his bravery.

I would also like to congratulate Pierce on receiving this citation from Toronto police, and commend him on his bravery. Good job, Pierce.

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House on Motion No. 165.

Motion No. 165 contains two separate proposals. One deals with the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency and the second deals with amendments to the Competition Act. Today I would like to comment on the first part of the motion, which proposes the creation of a petroleum monitoring agency. The motion states:

That...the government should take action with regard to gasoline prices by: (a) setting up a petroleum monitoring agency responsible for preparing an annual report on all aspects of the industry, including how prices are set and competition issues....

The report would be considered by the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology.

The government has frequently been asked to create a federal commission or agency to monitor gas prices. Such proposals usually surface when petroleum product prices are increasing or fluctuating. The most recent proposal was made by the former Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in November 2003.

Its report, “Gasoline Prices in Canada”, recommended that the federal government create an independent agency that would undertake the collection and dissemination of information on gasoline prices. The purpose of this report was to make consumers more fully aware of the competitive nature of the industry.

After careful consideration of the recommendation, the government responded to the committee in April 2004. While the government agreed with the committee on the importance of having publicly available information on petroleum product prices in Canada, it indicated that current government activities, along with the gasoline pricing information collected and publicly distributed by other levels of government, agencies and the private sector, provided the most practical and cost effective method of informing the consumer.

When gasoline prices rise, Canadians naturally are concerned. High prices directly affect our cost of living. We all sympathize with those who have had to cope with these increases, and all of us in this House have had to do that as well.

To handle the issue of gas prices, we must first clearly understand what causes these increases and what action the Government of Canada can take under our Constitution.

The law of supply and demand dictates the price of gas in competitive markets.

Since 1985 the government has been committed to a market-based energy policy. Oil prices are set in the international marketplace. This is the basis for our domestic crude oil prices and ultimately for the price of refined petroleum products.

The current increases in oil product prices are largely due to developments in international markets over which Canada has no control. First, there is the growing world oil demand in China and the United States which has pushed crude oil prices up. Second, the tight supply-demand balance in petroleum product markets, particularly in the United States, is forcing wholesale prices up. Third, speculative commodity forces are affecting prices further.

Although there are no shortages of crude oil or products, these market conditions result in higher petroleum product prices for consumers.

Besides the price of crude oil, numerous other factors influence prices at the pump. I will mention the costs to produce and transport the product, and the level of supply, inventory and demand, on both local and international markets.

As you may know, the price of gas includes federal and provincial taxes.

Information collected by the International Energy Agency shows that on an excluding tax basis Canadian gasoline prices are comparable and even lower than those of most industrialized countries.

As I indicated earlier, there have been calls in the past for the federal government to take action with regard to gasoline prices. The Government of Canada continues to be actively involved in addressing the concerns of all Canadians regarding petroleum product prices. For example, a few years ago Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada co-sponsored two separate studies by the Conference Board of Canada.

One study focused on Canadian gasoline markets and the other on diesel markets. The purpose of the gasoline study was to take an independent and comprehensive look at the nature and functioning of the wholesale and retail gasoline markets in Canada. The diesel study looked at changes in the Canadian diesel industry over the previous decade and the impact of those changes on the trucking and farming sectors.

The final reports released in 2001 indicated that Canada was well served by our market policy. Overall, it operates efficiently and generates some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world.

In May 2004, in response to consumer concerns, the Competition Bureau undertook a new examination of Canadian oil and gas markets in order to determine if retail price increases in the spring and summer of 2004 were the result of anti-competitive behaviour.

On March 31 this year, the Competition Bureau released the results of its extensive examination. Its general findings indicated that the rapid rise in retail gasoline prices was due to low inventories of gasoline in North America and worldwide increases in the price of crude, that the pricing behaviour in the major centres in Canada was in response to normal market forces and that prices in Canada continued to be lower than in most countries in the industrialized world.

Only in the case of an emergency does the federal government have the authority to take measures to affect product pricing. Those authorities and the broad circumstances in which they can be used are set out in legislation. Under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, a system of price and allocation controls can be imposed in a national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting “the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada”.

Under the Emergencies Act, the government can take special temporary measures during a national state of emergency. A “national emergency” means an urgent or critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and that cannot be effectively dealt with by a province or under any other law of Canada.

Declaration of a national emergency requires approval by the governor in council. It is not a power to be exercised lightly. There are currently no shortages of crude oil or petroleum products in Canada that would necessitate such actions.

Under Canada's Constitution, the provinces have the authority to regulate retail prices and some provinces have taken this path.

Currently, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec regulate prices in some manner. In Prince Edward Island the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission regulates the timing and the frequency of wholesale price changes and determines the minimum and maximum mark up between the wholesale price to the retailer and the retail price to the consumer. In Newfoundland and Labrador the Petroleum Pricing Office within the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities is responsible for regulating fuel prices by setting the maximum retail price at the pump in each region.

In Quebec, the Régie de l'énergie is responsible for monitoring gas and diesel prices and calculating the minimum retail price that retailers in each region can set. Clearly, the provinces and the federal government do not view regulation as a power to be exercised lightly.

Public information on petroleum product prices is already available through various sources, including provincial governments, petroleum agencies, the private sector, international agencies and governments. Natural Resources Canada is working to ensure that Canadians are aware that such information is available and that they can access it by NRCan's website.

At the federal level, the Competition Bureau plays a role in overseeing competitive aspects of the gasoline sector.

The creation of an agency could confuse consumers about the federal government's role with regard to gas prices. As a result, the public might believe that the federal government can intervene in the regulation of gas prices. This runs counter to the fact that, in the absence of a national emergency, retail price regulation comes under provincial jurisdiction, as I stated earlier.

In conclusion, because gasoline pricing falls under provincial jurisdiction, because the federal government's action is limited to emergency situations and because anti-competitive behaviour can be appropriately addressed under the Competition Act, I would ask members not to support the motion.

[Petitions, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with a number of signatures from constituents who pray that Parliament defines marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Committees of the House, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on a motion which would accept the report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-206. First, I would like to congratulate the member for Mississauga South for his very diligent work on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol.

What the committee dealt with, when it reviewed the private member's bill, was the idea of putting warning labels on bottles of beer, wine and spirits warning against the consumption of alcohol. The member's intent is very well-founded. We know that he has taken a very keen interest in the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome and has made quite a study of it. We know he has very good intentions when it comes to his bill.

However, we need to focus on the process where his bill was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Health. That committee had witnesses from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups. In the wisdom of committee members, after hearing all the testimony, they decided that the bill should be defeated and that the committee ask the Minister of Health to present a comprehensive plan to the committee by June 2, outlining a strategy for helping people who drank irresponsibly, including drinking and driving and fetal alcohol syndrome. That was a very sound recommendation.

The question of the labelling came up and pre-empted the review of the Department of Health and the Minister of Health of a very thoughtful drug strategy. We should not rush ahead with putting labels on bottles of spirits, wine and beer until we have a look at that comprehensive program. A caution is also warranted because there does not seem to be any evidence, notwithstanding the member for Mississauga South's best intentions, that putting warning labels on bottles will have any impact whatsoever.

In fact, it will put an additional cost burden on industry without any appreciable benefit. We are trying to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving, drinking while pregnant and drinking while operating heavy machinery. The information in studies that have been done in Canada tells me that 96% of women know they should not drink while pregnant. If we survey pregnant women, 99% know they should not drink while pregnant. If we do the same survey about drinking and driving or drinking and operating heavy equipment, a full 95% or thereabouts of people know that they should not drink if they are going to operate heavy equipment or drive.

If the objective is to educate people, people already know this. Therefore, I wonder what we will accomplish. What we will accomplish is that we will put an additional burden on the beer industry, the wine industry and the spirit industry. They will have to move resources from programs that already work, and we know they work very well.

For example, at committee we heard a witness who formed a company called TAXIGUY. The firm operates across Canada. If people want to get a lift from a bar because they have had too much to drink, TAXIGUY has a 1-800 number. Drivers will pick them up, drive them home and the next morning they will come back and help them find their car. That program is funded partly by companies like Molson and Labatt and partly by MADD.

The industry would have to review all these programs. I know the beer industry for example does some tremendous work with fetal alcohol syndrome. It has worked with a group called Motherisk which has a hotline for pregnant women who can phone and talk about drinking and pregnancy.

There is a host of responsible drinking programs that the beer industry and other industries support. The industry would have to review those. We could ask review those for what purpose? It would be so they could absorb the cost of putting labels on bottles where there is no evidence to suggest that these have any effect or impact. They have had warning labels in the United States for many years and there is no evidence whatsoever that labels have any impact.

If we look at the mechanics of it, what about if one goes to a bar and gets a glass of draft beer? What if one goes to a reception and gets a glass of wine poured? There are no labels. I think the impact of this measure is very dubious at most.

What we really need to focus attention on, in my judgment, is the drinker who drinks in excess and drives for example, and these are repeaters. We need to deal with them. It is not the casual drinker who is the problem. The same thing applies to women who are pregnant. It has been shown statistically that some 60% or thereabouts of women who drink when they are pregnant will do it again and again. They will repeat that kind of behaviour. Putting a label on a bottle I do not think will have any impact.

For these reasons, I will support the motion. The health committee looked at this very carefully. Let us accept its recommendation. Let us get a strategy from the Department of Health and then see if labels are part of that strategy or not.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on some of the statements by the member opposite. We have had this discussion in question period the last few days about this fine point between an audit and a forensic accounting review.

To the average citizen I suppose it does not make a lot of sense. The fact is I am a chartered accountant and I know how these audits and these reviews work. In the accounting world we have an audit, an accounting review, a statement without audit. There is a range of types of reviews.

I checked in the Oxford English Dictionary and it defines “forensic” as “relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime”.

When someone does a forensic accounting review, in many respects he or she is going beyond the methodology of a normal audit, because an audit does not presume that there is something wrong or that some wrongful act has been committed. An audit presumes that in normal circumstances the accounting records would reflect the economic reality. A forensic accounting review starts with the premise that there has been something untoward or something criminal.

Instead of trying to dance on the point of a needle on the difference between an audit and a forensic accounting review, I would argue, and I have some experience with this, that a forensic accounting review actually looks in more depth at the kind of issues that this government was interested in looking at.

I would ask the member to do his homework before he speaks in this House without any knowledge.

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yes I will challenge the member on that because the reality is, and I have seen it every day since we have been back in this session of Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc, the separatists, have been working together on a whole range of issues in the committee structure, on issues that do not make any sense for Canada, but the Conservatives know where the politics are. They know that they have some work to do in the province of Quebec so what do they do? They play footsie with the separatists and the separatists play a bit of footsie back because that is the way they get things done.

In the committee structure we know that if the Conservatives and the Bloc get together they have the numbers to defeat motions and propose motions. It is an unholy alliance and Canadians need to know all about it.

I take great exception to the hypocrisy of saying that they are not in bed with the Bloc and the separatists because they are.