Roy Cullen

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Calgary Centre-North outlined his rationale for a public inquiry, and that would be a witch hunt. I am pleased to have that kind of clarity around his rationale for having such an inquiry.

I just want to correct a couple of points that the member made. First, the Deputy Prime Minister has not eliminated any option. She talked about bringing in an eminent Canadian. The member for Calgary Centre-North wants to know where these eminent Canadians are. I and this government are very confident that we have many eminent Canadians so we do not share the member's anxiety that he proposed earlier.

We also need to make it clear that the government is not attempting to hide anything. In fact, if the member had been in the House or had listened to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to say, she said that the eminent Canadian would help her work with the families to identify what issues are still outstanding and, in doing that, to meet with any person with whom the eminent Canadian would like to meet. It is not a secret process that the government is proposing. It is a way to facilitate the identification of the issues.

How do we look at today's world in relation to the world 20 years ago when we know that so much has changed in the world of terrorism, in the world of combating terrorism and in the way that we have structured government and the policies? With so much time having elapsed, how do we reconcile a review today of something that happened 20 years ago when the world has changed so rapidly and so fundamentally?

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the families of the victims are concerned, it is my understanding that the minister will be meeting with a large number of the family representatives next week. The purpose of that meeting will be to identify what issues the families feel are still outstanding and how realistically those issues could be dealt with and answers brought forward.

The other thing I need to respond to immediately is the notion that if it happened to another group, there would be a differential response by the Government of Canada. I reject that out of hand completely. I know that our government rejects that out of hand completely. This has nothing to do with race, politics or anything of that nature.

On a personal note, in my riding of Etobicoke North I am blessed with a very large Indo-Canadian population. I have a very strong relationship them. To even suggest that it might be the case that because it is a group of Indo-Canadians who are affected as opposed to another group of Canadians is preposterous. The government I know rejects that type of thinking right out of hand.

I come back to a couple of issues that I am seized with. If there is an inquiry, what additional information will we be able to glean from that? That is partly the purpose of the meeting with the families. As the Deputy Prime Minister outlined, there is a large amount of work that has been done on this case, admittedly with some inconclusive answers which are troubling to all of us, especially the families of those who died in this terrible tragedy.

I am not going to reread the list of events that have taken place since the tragedy. However, it has been hugely thorough. In fact, it is the longest and most complex trial in Canadian history. There was the civil lawsuit which was settled, the security and intelligence committee review, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board investigation, and the investigations conducted in Ireland and India.

I guess I have a question for the member. What new information would be gleaned by an inquiry at this time?

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, right now for example, the Justice Gomery inquiry is going on. Partial testimony has been raised here on the floor of the House of Commons. People who are subject to criminal charges are appearing in front of Justice Gomery's inquiry. There have been media blackouts which have evidenced themselves on websites in the United States and then media blackouts have been dropped.

Surely we have learned from the Gomery inquiry that it is very difficult, very challenging to have a criminal prosecution proceeding at the same time as a public inquiry. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for presenting a good summary of the tragedy that occurred on June 23, 1985 and of the subsequent events.

Through his exceptional experience as justice minister in Quebec, the hon. member understands Canadian law and the legal system very well. He also understands that the Attorney General of British Columbia was asked to rule on whether to appeal the verdict or not and still has not announced his decision. The Crown has three days to appeal a ruling.

The motion introduced today by the Conservative Party calls for an independent judicial inquiry.

I ask the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin then, how can we hold an inquiry before the Attorney General of British Columbia hands down his decision?

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we all want to express our deepest sympathies for the families of the victims of the Air-India bombing, the single largest terrorist attack in Canadian history. It is a tragedy to the hundreds of families, and we should never forget the suffering they have endured.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be speaking very shortly and I will be speaking later, so I will not get into the main thrust of what I want to say. However, I have a couple of questions for the member.

In the motion he is calling for an independent judicial inquiry. In his remarks he talked about a public inquiry. Could the member elaborate on precisely what he is looking for?

Right now, for example, we have the Justice Gomery inquiry looking into the sponsorship situation. We have Justice O'Connor looking into the Arar situation. Is that the kind of public inquiry he is seeking?

With respect to the O'Connor inquiry, does he see any potential overlap with what Justice O'Connor is doing vis-à-vis looking at the relationship between CSIS and the RCMP and what this proposal would contemplate?

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member realizes that we have a border of some 8,000 kilometres between Canada and the United States. I suppose the member's solution would be to have customs officials or RCMP every few hundred yards or so. He realizes that is not feasible, possible or realistic.

However, as I mentioned, in the recent budget the Government of Canada announced an investment of $433 million over five years in additional funding to support the Canada Border Services Agency's operations. The funding will enhance the agency's capacity to manage the access of people and goods to and from Canada, and to ensure the safety and economic prosperity of all Canadians.

The health and safety of the Canada Border Services Agency officers continue to be of paramount importance to the agency and to the Government of Canada.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer the question raised by the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

As the Deputy Prime Minister already indicated in the House, there are actually two components to the member's question. The first deals with the safety of the Canada Border Services Agency's officers on the front lines and the second is about port runners.

I want to assure members that the government is committed to the safety of our front line officers. Their safety and security are our highest priority. A positive and safe work environment protects employees and leads to enhanced security measures and service delivery. To that end we have completed risk assessments in all customs locations. The “Job Hazard Analysis - Working Alone Strategy” was commissioned in part to look at ways in which the agency could improve working conditions for its employees and improve security.

I cannot discuss the specific criteria used to determine the level of risk for each site because it would compromise the safety of employees and the security of the agency's operations. I can assure members that the agency's front line officers have all the training and the tools they need for their safety and security.

The job hazard analysis strategy is a work in progress and has been in development for some time. The agency is working on this matter with the union at the local and national levels and has shared the strategy with them through the national health and safety policy committee.

As mentioned in the recent budget, considerable funding has been allocated to matters of security. The additional funding will make it possible to provide training and protective tools and to take other steps to reduce risks for officers working alone.

In fact in budget 2005, $433 million was allocated to the Canada Border Services Agency over five years to build capacity and further enhance the safe and efficient movement of goods and people across our borders.

I should mention that over the past four years the government has spent over $9 billion on enhancing the security of Canada.

Significant investments have been made to facilitate the flow of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border while keeping it closed to criminals and terrorists. The Canada Border Services Agency has worked closely with the United States and our law enforcement partners to ensure that the border remains secure.

We have also invested $125 million in federal funding to establish RCMP led integrated border enforcement teams along the Canada-U.S. border to harmonize border security efforts of Canadian and U.S. law enforcement.

I would like to address the second issue, that of border runners, to which the hon. member referred in his question.

Ensuring the security of our borders is the CBSA's number one priority. We share the longest undefended border in the world. The Canada Border Services Agency works closely with its counterparts in the United States to make sure that the border remains secure.

All persons wishing to enter Canada are obligated to stop and report to the CBSA. Anyone who does not is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment under the Customs Act.

Last year approximately 71 million persons were processed by the agency at land border ports of entry. The vast majority of people and businesses comply with the law and we work hard to facilitate compliance.

The agency works hard with local law enforcement. We continue to see this as a priority area.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, let me remind my honourable colleague that the government has a responsibility to ensure the public safety of all Canadians.

Canada has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting national security. As we all know, in matters of national security the cost of failure can be high.

That being said, only 27 security certificates have been issued since 1991. As I have already stated, the security certificate process is undertaken in exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld this process and the government will continue to issue security certificates in those exceptional cases where it is deemed necessary to protect public safety.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in response to the request put to this House by my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, as to whether the government intends to review the legislation governing the security certificate process.

To begin, allow me to clarify a few misconceptions regarding security certificates.

First, the security certificate process is pursuant to provisions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and not the Anti-Terrorism Act. The use of security certificates predates the September 11 attacks. In fact, security certificates have existed in one form or another for over 20 years.

Second, the security certificate provides a means to ensure that Canada's immigration laws are not misused by the very few who would seek to undermine the security of Canadians and the multicultural society we have built together. Given the serious consequences of issuing such a certificate, it is only used on a limited basis in very serious cases for individuals who present the highest level of risk.

Third, the certificate process allows for the removal of permanent residents or foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality. A Canadian citizen cannot be the subject of a certificate.

Over the years, there have been several constitutional challenges to the security certificate process, yet Canadian courts have repeatedly upheld it. The Supreme Court of Canada, in fact, has validated the security certificate process, ruling that the process does not breach the principles of fundamental justice and that the process strikes an appropriate balance between the individual's right to procedural fairness and the interests of the state in national security.

While the courts have repeatedly upheld the security certificate process as constitutional, the government acknowledges the decision of the Subcommittee on Public Safety and National Security of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to undertake a review of the security certificate provisions. As such, we welcome its review and await its recommendations.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. In the first one some 1,300 constituents ask Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The second petition with some 600-odd signatures is asking Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.