Roy Cullen

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to enter into the debate on the motion. I feel some authorship of this issue in the sense that back in April, 2004 I had the great honour to chair the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. We had hearings on the topics of duty remission and the zero rating of tariffs on textile inputs. We wrote a report and tabled it in the House of Commons.

Subsequent to that, we had a general election in Canada and therefore on the dissolution of Parliament the report died. However the new chair, my colleague for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, and the members of the reconstituted Standing Committee on Finance essentially re-endorsed the report and re-tabled it with one minor exception. They made a wording change in one of the recommendations that had to do with the undertaking of a study on the benefits and cost.

In terms of the recommendation around duty remission and the tariffs, the newly reconstituted Standing Committee on Finance endorsed the previous recommendations and that report was tabled in the House. What the member for Winnipeg Centre is arguing is that the House of Commons should endorse that report and the recommendations that were contained in that report.

I must say that we had some very compelling arguments made to us in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance back in April. What we have here are two different industries, although interrelated, the textile industry and the apparel industry.

If one were to go back to the days of the free trade agreement and NAFTA, everyone, certainly in the province of Quebec and perhaps across Canada, would have said that with the introduction of the FTA and NAFTA the textile industry in Canada was doomed and that it was long gone because it just could not compete with some of the huge textile manufacturers in the United States and around the world.

What we found however is that the textile industry in Canada was able to reorient itself and focus on some core competencies. It basically over time moved away from some of its traditional types of business, which was apparel and apparel related, and moved its industry more into industrial products, making carpets, accessories for cars and anything related to textiles in the industrial market. Therefore the textile industry has been able to survive and prosper.

We also heard that the apparel industry could not survive under FTA or NAFTA, but we have had some big success stories in the apparel industry. A company in Montreal named Peerless Clothing Inc. appeared at our Standing Committee on Finance. We all congratulated the company for the amazing work that it had done. It has been able to carve a niche in the United States market on men's suits and has turned its business into a multi-million business.

However we now have a changing world again. We have a changing world in the sense that there are companies in China, for example, and other parts of Asia where labour costs are very low and they have started to compete in a very big way. In fact the World Trade Organization, members of the House and members of the apparel industry and textile industry support moves by our government and governments around the world to remove some of the tariff protection that currently exists or has existed. They want to see the least developed countries having the opportunity to market their products around the world, which would create jobs, economic opportunities and economic development in the least developed countries of the world.

We heard at our committee that the apparel and the textile industry supported the WTO initiative to lower tariffs generally to provide opportunities for these least developed countries to realize their full potential when it comes to textiles and apparel.

Having said that, that creates some new challenges. We have some cost competitiveness issues where it is very hard for companies in Canada that pay a decent wage to compete against some of these countries in Asia and in Bangladesh and China. Therefore, there are some government programs and initiatives that help these industries.

In the context of the apparel industry, the first one is duty remission. I have been told that we have something like 200 companies in Canada that benefit from the duty remission program, which is a program where companies that manufacture apparel in Canada are able to get a remission on duties on some of the apparel products that they import into Canada.

I believe that program costs the government somewhere in the order of $26 million to $30 million a year. Some 200 companies in Canada benefit from that. The list of the companies that benefit was structured sometime in the 1980s. We would have to ponder how companies made it on to the list and how some did not, but generally, as I understand the criteria, if a company manufactured apparel here in Canada it got the duty remission.

Without the government taking any action, that duty remission will expire at the end of December of this year. The apparel industry is saying that it will be caught in a very difficult position if that duty remission order expires and there is no renewal at the end of this calendar year.

One can argue that the apparel industry was told when the duty remission order was renewed seven years ago that it would not be renewed again. One could fault them for not adjusting to the new competitive reality. However, maybe the industry did try to adjust. For example, I know of a company in the Toronto area that is on the duty remission and it received somewhere approaching $4 million a year. This company manufactures a lot of shirts in Canada and it employs a lot of people.

I do not have any apparel or textile companies in my riding. I became seized with this issue when I was the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance but I became more aware of some of their issues when they appeared in front of the committee. Some of these companies rely on duty remission to remain competitive. The very legitimate question is whether the apparel industry in Canada can be competitive in the medium to long run. I think that is a valid public policy question.

I do not pretend to have the answer to that. I do not know enough to say that maybe they have not been aggressive enough adjusting their costs or enhancing their productivity. I do not know enough to say that categorically. However, by the same token, I do not know enough to say that they have exhausted all the productivity enhancements that they could employ and therefore are still in a position of being non-competitive.

I think we need to examine this. My own personal preference would be to buy a bit of time. I do not think we should be stopping the duty remission cold turkey on January 1. I do think it would have an impact on jobs. I think it would have some economic consequences and consequences for people who are currently employed in these apparel industry factories and manufacturing facilities.

My own recommendation is that the government renews duty remission for seven more years, which is what the finance committee recommended. I understand that the finance committee can make recommendations and the government actually has a very good record of responding to recommendations from the Standing Committee on Finance, but in fairness, the Standing Committee on Finance looks at particular issues. The finance minister and the government have to look at a whole range of competing resource demands to come up with a budget and a fiscal plan.

I would like to see some accommodation on the duty remission. Whether it is renewed for a full seven years at the full rate is a question I think the Minister of Finance should ponder. I am not privy to all the competing demands on the fiscal resources of the government.

My only point is that I think it would be a mistake to just drop duty remission on January 1. I would like to see the government extend it somehow. It would make a very good study for one of the committees or a joint committee of the House to better come to grips with the textile and apparel industries, how they relate, what their competitive position is in the medium to long term, and what the best way would be for the government to involve itself.

We have programs in the textile industry. One of those programs is called the CANtex program. Industry Canada provided some funding for CANtex a year or two ago to help the textile industry. In fairness, it takes a while for these programs to get up and running, but when I speak to the textile or apparel industries they say that they still have not seen the benefits from that program.

Admittedly, they have their own economic axe to grind and economic interests at stake, but we as politicians have to sift through a lot of information and in our own judgment at some point we have to make decisions on where we stand on certain issues. We cannot always believe one stakeholder or the other or the government.

I have been told that this program has not really caught hold yet and that it does not have a lot of traction. Maybe it needs more time to get going, but from the point of view of the industry, it does not see CANtex as a replacement for duty remission or any of the tariff relief that it is looking for.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the House and members of the other parties who were on the finance committee were seized with this issue, but I would like to mention my colleague from Ahuntsic in Montreal who has been on a crusade on this particular issue. Chabanel Street, which is in her riding, is where a large part of Canada's apparel industry is located and she has been on a crusade about this.

My colleague, the member for Beauce, has been integrally interested in this and pushing for resolution. My colleague from Guelph has been very involved, as have many others on this side. I appreciate the initiative the member for Winnipeg Centre has taken on this but it is an issue that has been discussed and advocated by many colleagues on this side of the House as well. It is not as though this is a new issue. This has been around for a while.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about its complexity. I understand that complexity should not grind things to a halt but it is complex, particularly if one looks at the interrelationship between textiles and apparel. If we do something for the apparel industry will that be good for textiles? If we do something for textiles will that be good for the apparel industry? Or, will it be good for both? It is not easy.

One of the recommendations in the report from the Standing Committee on Finance was to eliminate the tariffs. Recommendation 2 states:

That the federal government immediately end tariffs on inputs which are not produced domestically. Textile producers seeking continued tariff protection should be required to establish that they sell their products to Canadian apparel manufacturers.

I heard some of the representatives in the textile industry saying that at any point in time no one can freeze what textiles are produced domestically in Canada. What textiles are being produced domestically in Canada today might not be the same as the list that applies next week. There was discussion that it could be dealt with through regulation, that there would be a list and that any time that changed we could change the list. We also have the textile industry selling raw materials into the apparel industry. Therefore whatever is done on one side starts to impact on the other.

I would like to see the House of Commons do more work on understanding this industry better but in the meantime I would like to see something done on duty remissions. I do not think we should stop it cold turkey. I would like the government to deal with recommendation 2 in some shape or form.

There is a misconception that if the House of Commons concurs in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, it does not necessarily mean the government is obliged to implement the precise recommendations. It does mean that the House of Commons endorses the report, which would be a clear signal to the government that the House would like something done about it.

Having said that, the government does not have to accept every word of the recommendations. It has a decision to make. It is charged with governing on behalf of all Canadians. It could select some of the items, or some mix of them, and come up with a policy stance that deals with the issues which have been raised in a substantive way and perhaps not necessarily implement every recommendation of the finance committee.

We should be concerned about is this. The apparel industry and the textile industry employs many Canadians. We owe it to them to ensure that we have studied this indepth. I do not think we have done that at this point. Perhaps some of the officials have studied it, but we in the House have not studied it in the depth required. I would like to see a joint committee of the House of Commons look at these industries in more depth. In the meantime, measures can be taken that respond to the recommendations in the report.

I am more familiar with the apparel industry. The apparel industry is strong in Toronto, perhaps not as large as in Montreal. There is a large apparel industry in Winnipeg. If duty remission is stopped cold turkey, there is a real risk that some of these companies will have to look at their options. One option would be to move their facilities to Mexico or to some other country where they could get productivity or cost advantage, for whatever reason. It would be a shame if we lost these facilities and jobs to some other country because we did not act when we should have.

This is an important industry for Canada. If we look at the number of jobs, the apparel industry employs somewhere in the vicinity of 97,000 jobs in Canada. The textile employs something like 47,000 employees. These are important industries for Canada. Jobs in the apparel industry are mainly in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Jobs in the textile industry are mainly in small cities in rural areas of Quebec and Ontario.

I hope the government acts. I know members on this side of the House have been seized of the issue. I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing it into the chamber for debate. I hope and encourage the government to act on the recommendations, but not necessarily verbatim, which would be good. However, it should respond in a very aggressive and proactive way to these industries. In the short run, they need the government's help. We need to understand these industries better so we can decide where the resources should be best applied in the future.

[Question No. 18, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the total cost of the firearms program for each year since 1995 is:

• Includes indirect costs for the period of 1995-96 to 2001-02. Indirect costs are program costs incurred by other government departments that are not reimbursed by CAFC.

In response to (b), the cost for the licensing component of the program since 1995 is:

• Costs of licensing component by fiscal year not available for the period of 1995-96 to 2001-02.

In response to (c), the cost for the registration component of the program since 1995-96 is:

• Costs of Registration component by fiscal year not available for the period of 1995-96 to 2000-01.

Note: Past calculations for (b) and (c) were based on management estimates of activity and attribution of indirect costs to various program elements. CAFC is currently developing a detailed costing methodology to support a voted appropriation specifically for firearms registration activities that will be introduced in 2005-06. This methodology will be adopted for all future reporting.

In response to (d), it is expected to implement all components of the firearms program within the proposed $85 million annual funding level beginning in 2005-06.

In response to (e), Bill C-10A passed in May 2003. Proposed regulatory changes to implement the new legislation and to make the amendments to the regulations to support public safety and effective program administration were tabled in June 2003. Stakeholders and the public were consulted in the fall of 2003 and during the ministerial review of the program in early 2004. Parliamentary committees considered the proposals in the fall of 2003. Final changes to the regulations are to be made, including: import/export regulations; public agent regulations; firearms marking regulations; and changes to other regulations, e.g., licensing, gun shows.

It is anticipated that all components of the firearms program now planned or under development will be fully implemented by December 31, 2007.

In response to (f), as per the May 20, 2004 announcement by the government, funding for the Canada Firearms Centre will decline to $85 million in 2005-06 and beyond. This amount does not include indirect costs incurred by other federal departments. It does not include revenues from firearms licensing and other fees that are collected over the course of the fiscal year.

[Question No. 17, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in respect of the Canada Firearms Centre, CAFC, the contract for the development of the alternative service delivery solution, ASD, is made up of: (a) the development, solution realization phase, of the Canadian firearms information system, CFIS II, required to implement administrative and technical changes in Bill C-10A, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act including its Regulations; (b) the ongoing administrative operations, primarily at the central processing site; and (c) the anticipated solution enhancement requirements over the contract duration for the ongoing operations.

A contract was awarded to Team Centra, a partnership between CGI Group Inc. and BDP Business Data Services, now known as Resolve Corporation, for the solutions realization phase of the ASD. This contract is in the amount of $46,886,908, including GST, and a total of $9,665,665 has been paid to date to CGI.

Bill C-10A received royal assent in May 2003. Consultations in the fall of 2003 on the bill’s associated regulations resulted in changes from the original requirements. As of March 31, 2004 the regulations had not been made, which has resulted in deferring the implementation date of CFIS II. Reviews have been conducted on the initiative. Resulting options and a proposed course of action are under consideration.

A contract with EDS is currently ongoing until March 31, 2005 for the maintenance of the current Canadian firearms information system, CFIS I. This contract can be extended up to September 30, 2005. The contracts awarded to EDS, over a seven year period, relating to CFIS amount to $169,059,349, including GST, and payments of $165,926,243 including GST, have been issued to date, covering the seven year period from November 28, 1997 to September 15, 2004.

The delivery of IT services, systems and infrastructure for the firearms program are under active examination in the context of the government’s current review of expenditures.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, certainly all of the widows cited where these unfortunate incidents have occurred are part of the review. As I said previously, the arrangements for funerals and regimental funerals and the policy thereof within the RCMP is of long standing. The family requests for the funeral arrangements are always respected.

As I said before, a review of the funeral costs for the four families in question is ongoing. The RCMP is consulting with the families to review each of these situations and the RCMP will take any corrective action deemed necessary as a result of that review.

There may be a need to modernize parts of the policy regarding funeral and burial benefits for members of the RCMP. The guidelines for funeral benefits are intended to balance respect for those who have given their lives in service to Canada with the reality that such reimbursements come at public expense.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government, the RCMP and indeed all Canadian law enforcement officials recognize the sacrifices made by police officers who put their lives on the line every day.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize RCMP Auxiliary Constable Glen Evely, from Vernon, British Columbia, who recently died on duty. It is always extremely tragic when any police officer dies while contributing to public safety.

The RCMP has great respect and compassion for its members who died while carrying out their duties and for their families.

You are of course aware that the RCMP has undertaken a review of the funeral costs of the three members who died while on duty, namely Superintendent Dennis Massey, Corporal Jim Galloway, and officer Ghislain Maurice.

I can assure you that in the course of its review, the RCMP is in constant communication with the three families.

The RCMP's review will also identify if other families of fallen members have incurred costs associated with regimental funerals.

The RCMP has consistently adhered to its policies for funeral benefits over the years. Relevant policy and protocol are now being examined and the RCMP is committed to modernizing parts of the policy regarding funeral and burial benefits and to taking any corrective action deemed necessary based on these findings.

The guidelines for funeral and burial benefits must balance respect for those who have given their lives in service to Canada with the reality that such reimbursements come at public expense.

I can tell members that immediate and ongoing support is provided to the family of any member who dies on duty. This support encompasses personal assistance while funeral and burial arrangements are being planned, as well as advice and guidance regarding the benefits available to survivors. Families of fallen members are also advised that there may be funds available through other sources within the RCMP to assist them.

All decisions regarding the funeral arrangements of a fallen member of the RCMP rest with the family. In every case, the family's preferences regarding funeral arrangements are respected.

Regimental funerals are a longstanding tradition which gives communities an opportunity to recognize and honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Giving the community and, in reality all Canadians, an opportunity to express their compassion and their respect can increase funeral costs.

In the spring of 2004, the RCMP requested that the Treasury Board review RCMP funeral and burial benefits for their members to revise and modernize the policy. This review is ongoing in consultation and partnership with the Department of National Defence and Treasury Board.

The Commissioner of the RCMP has made a commitment to the families that the review will be done expeditiously and that dialogue with the families will continue until their concerns are addressed.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Justice.

I am very pleased to participate in this important debate on the Ukraine presidential election. It was a very proud day for me today when the Deputy Prime Minister stood in the House earlier and rejected the announced final results and called for a full, open and transparent review of the election.

The Deputy Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the government, also stated that if the authorities failed to provide election results that reflected the democratic will of the people, the Government of Canada would have no choice but to examine our relations with Ukraine.

I am also proud of the fact that in the House this evening we have had a largely non-partisan debate, and so it should be because this is an issue that goes beyond partisanship. This is an issue about the future of the Ukrainian people and indeed of the world at large.

I also congratulate my colleague, my neighbour from Etobicoke Centre, and other Canadian parliamentarians, for speaking out for democracy in Ukraine, for going to Ukraine to witness the election and for coming back and informing members of the House and our caucus of the travesty that took place in the election.

The election was horribly flawed. Canadian and international observers have reported numerous voting and counting violations, voter intimidation and obvious ballot stuffing. There was an inappropriate abuse of state controlled media. Exit interviews gave a clear indication that Viktor Yushchenko was the clear winner but the Central Electoral Commission has reported Viktor Yanukovych as the new president.

The people of Ukraine deserve much better, as do the citizens of the world, those who are committed to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Ukraine is doing its utmost to build democratic institutions and to build a market economy. There are many challenges facing the people in Ukraine. Corruption is one of the plagues that faces that country. An independent organization, Transparency International, has consistently ranked Ukraine as one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

Many Ukrainians, to their credit, are saying this has to come to an end. They are realizing the problems that corruption creates for their society. There is no definitive statistics on this but there is a general consensus that high levels of corruption can deprive the citizens of about 8% of their GDP annually. It also causes huge problems with income distribution where the very many look to the very few who are taking the lion's share of the benefits of a growing economy, and they are taking more than their share by a long shot of the wealth that might be created by that economy and by the people in that country.

There is an organization globally, which was initiated actually here in Canada, called the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. It is a group of parliamentarians worldwide that is working together to see if we cannot stamp out, perhaps not completely, perhaps not next year, perhaps not in 10 years, but to limit the growth certainly of corruption and to reduce its impact in absolute terms. It is a big challenge but what we are finding is that there are parliamentarians around the world who are committed to the fight against corruption, many at great risk to themselves.

I recall meeting a parliamentarian from Zimbabwe. She was speaking out about the corruption in that country. Every other weekend she was arrested, taken to a jail and interrogated. She never knew really from one day to the next what her fate might be. I congratulate her and so many others who have the courage to take on this issue. It is not an easy issue. There is so much corruption entrenched, regrettably, in so many of our societies. It is simply not the way to go.

I had the opportunity a few years ago to visit Kiev. I was invited by NATO to speak. The topic was essentially corruption and money laundering, a threat to international security. I had never actually seen the connection in those terms, that corruption and money laundering were an international threat but we are seeing it today in Ukraine, the threat to international peace by the actions of some corrupt people in Ukraine and by a very corrupt election, no matter how one defines it. It might have been vote buying. There clearly seems to have been vote buying. The very nature of the election and the way it was conducted was corrupt.

We can see the effect of corruption and money laundering. It permeates the culture of a society. It begins to attack the very democratic institutions and the human rights that many in Ukraine are fighting for. I was very happy to hear that many people in Ukraine are saying, “We have had enough and we are not going to take it anymore. We are going to make sure that the democratic choice of the people is respected”.

It is most unfortunate if Russia involves itself in the results of this election, which it obviously appears to be doing at this time. I have met members of the Russian State Duma and the Federation Council. They should be standing up and holding the executive branch of the Russian government to account for the way that it is getting involved in this election. The executive branch has a right to indicate a preference, but to get involved in any kind of militaristic way or in any way that goes beyond stating its opinion is totally wrong in my judgment. I know that many people in the Russian State Duma and the Federation Council are working very hard to build democratic institutions in that country and to build a market economy. This would be a huge step backward for the Russian government to involve itself in any kind of militaristic way in this election.

Canada has a long, long history with Ukraine. I have been told that there are over a million people in Canada who have some ties to Ukraine. My next door neighbour is from Ukraine, and we can probably all say that. They are very proud people. They are very industrious people. They have added great things to our country. We mourn the fact that they look to their country of birth and witness what is happening, after taking five or ten steps forward, to be burdened with this fraudulent activity and this fraud of an election in Ukraine.

I repeat that it was a very proud moment for me today when I heard our Deputy Prime Minister stake out our position very clearly and unequivocally. Canada is taking a leadership role and rightly so. More nations are following and will follow. It is through the collective work now of the nations of the world that have an interest in democracy, that have an interest in human rights, and a vast majority of people on this planet do, to stand together to make sure that this election is rejected, that there is a full investigation and that there is a new election which follows a process that is fair and transparent and respected by the world community.

We should be working with our partners internationally to make sure that happens. If it does not happen, we should be looking at collective action, collective sanctions, and as our Deputy Prime Minister said today, revisiting our relationships with Ukraine. That would be a very unfortunate turn of events, but it so happens that in life we sometimes have to make very tough decisions, and if Ukraine's election results stand, as is being touted now, I do not think Canada or the rest of the world would have any choice.

[Question No. 4, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government takes the protection of critical infrastructure of all kinds in this country very seriously. We are working with the provinces, such as Saskatchewan, and the private sector and sector associations, including the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. A paper outlining the government’s position on key elements of a Canadian strategy on critical infrastructure protection, CIP, was released on November 10, 2004 at http://www.ocipep.gc.ca/critical/nciap/positionpap_e.asp.

The Government of Canada has taken important steps to respond to the increasingly complex and dangerous threat environment that exists since the horrific events of September 11, 2001. On December 12, 2003 the Prime Minister announced a series of organizational changes that contribute to more effective integration of security efforts including: the appointment of a Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, with a new department supporting the core functions of security and intelligence, border services, immigration enforcement and emergency management; and the appointment of a national security adviser to the Prime Minister to improve coordination and integration of security efforts among government departments.

In the past few years, the government has funded over $8 billion in additional investments to address our key security gaps. More remains to be done. On April 27 of this year, Canada’s first-ever comprehensive national security policy was issued. The policy articulates core national security interests and proposes a framework for addressing threats to Canadians. The framework will be supported by $690 million of new money to address priority gaps in the Government’s areas of responsibility.

The government is moving forward deliberately with this plan, but recognizes the seriousness of the challenge and the sustained nature of the effort required. A fully integrated security system ensures that we can more effectively respond to existing threats and quickly adapt to new ones. The system is to be fully connected to key partners such as provinces, territories, communities and the private sector. The system begins with a comprehensive threat assessment that provides both tactical and strategic information about risks to Canada. Consequently, the Government produces comprehensive threat reports, which are made available to those who require them.

Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, PSEPC, supported by the national security adviser will ensure the development and implementation of the security system to ensure that Canada is prepared for and can respond to current and future threats.

PSEPC also has a role in research and development related to critical infrastructure protection. PSEPC’s work includes a research report entitled “Water, Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Management”, see http://www.ocipep.gc.ca/research/resactivites/CI/2002-D016_e.asp. PSEPC also collaborates and assists the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, or CWWA, http://www.cwwa.ca, and its members. For example, PSEPC funded the production of two guidebooks on best management practice for water systems and for wastewater systems respectively. PSEPC commends the CWWA membership for its initiatives in enhancing the security measures of its members’ facilities.

With respect to a terrorist or vandalism threat, it is communities that are responsible for doing all possible to protect their facilities, based on current threat information. The federal role is to provide threat information in order that communities can make an informed decision on water protection. The federal government through PSEPC continually works to improve capacity in sharing threat related information with critical infrastructure owners and operators.

Finally, Infrastructure Canada also publishes a number of municipal infrastructure national guides, many of which relate to water safety. A listing of the many InfraGuides is available at http://www.infraguide.ca/bestPractices/PublishedBP_e.asp.

Subsequent to these federal measures, water protection in communities remains a provincial/municipal responsibility. In Saskatchewan, the province established the Saskatchewan Watershed Authority to manage and protect water quality and quantity. Its website is http://www.swa.ca. There are many federal agencies that share some form of responsibility for water safety in Saskatchewan including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/water/intro_e.htm.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nickel Belt for his hard work for victims. The points he made earlier about what he would like the government to do have been duly noted. We will work with him on those items.

I am pleased to join in the discussion of private member's Bill C-243, proposing the establishment of an ombudsman for victims of crime.

I think that this debate would be well founded by setting the context for this proposed alternative.

To this end, I will briefly set out the current state of victims in our criminal justice system with reference to recent history. In particular, I shall refer to the area of corrections where victims can participate in the administration of the sentences of those offenders who are of interest to them.

I must emphasize that the majority of victims do not seek intimate involvement in the circumstances surrounding a trial, conviction, sentencing and eventual release of the offenders who have wronged them. Many choose, instead, to leave justice to the justice system. They do not request additional information or ask that they be allowed to participate by giving information about an offender. That does not mean that those who do wish this type of approach should not be considered and considered very seriously.

The movement to provide more inclusive processes for victims of crime who do maintain an interest in the outcome of cases has gained momentum in Canada over the past decade.

In 1992, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act recognized the interests of victims and introduced entitlements relating to corrections and conditional release.

Victims could, on request, receive certain information about the offender who had harmed them. They could attend National Parole Board hearings as observers and they could receive copies of board decisions, including the reasons for the decision. The act also recognized the value of information that victims could provide to decision makers for risk assessment and conditional release consideration. Subsequently, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights issued two reports dealing with victims' issues.

In October 1998, the first, entitled “Victims' Rights: A Voice, Not a Veto”, addressed the significance of the interests of victims and supported their greater involvement with the corrections and conditional release. It recommended a number of changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The government enacted a number of amendments to the Criminal Code in June 1999 in what hon. members will remember as Bill C-79. However, changes to the corrections legislation were left in abeyance pending the report of a parliamentary standing committee then conducting the five-year review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The standing committee report on its review of the correctional legislation was tabled in May 2000. Entitled “A Work in Progress”, the report found the Canadian federal correctional system to be basically sound. Where the need for improvement was noted, victims' issues were addressed as a priority.

Six recommendations were made to enhance the involvement of victims in corrections and conditional release: advise victims of inmate transfers; provide victims with information on offender program participation, institutional conduct and new offences; prevent unwanted communications from federal inmates to victims; allow victims to read a prepared statement at National Parole Board hearings; allow access for victims to the audio tapes of National Parole Board hearings; and establish a national office to provide information, investigate complaints and report findings.

In November 2000, in response to the standing committee, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, now Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, set out a comprehensive strategy based on consultation and involvement of all relevant stakeholders, with particular emphasis on victims and their advocates. This strategy provided balance, addressing the respective needs, concerns and privacy rights of both victims and offenders.

The response acknowledged that the portfolio, through its correctional agencies, was not the sole or primary service provider to victims. Rather, Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board are key partners with other orders of government and community based groups that must work collaboratively to coordinate and provide improved information and services for victims.

In building the strategy, the government recognized the input of victims collected in 39 consultation sessions across the country, which indicated that victims wanted more access to information earlier in the process and more opportunities to be heard and to provide information. It recognized that these things could best be achieved with an approach that sought to understand and address the underlying needs that created victims' requests and interest. In this context the response was founded on an open, citizen-centred approach that emphasized timely information and assistance for victims.

The Victims Policy Centre at the Department of Justice was consulted in the preparation of an integrated model for service delivery. The response was therefore consistent and complementary with the ongoing endeavours of the Department of Justice.

In March 2001, the Department of the Solicitor General, as it then was, in collaboration with the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service of Canada, conducted national consultations with victims of crime and victim service providers. Eight meetings were held in major cities across Canada. The report of these consultations, “National Consultation with Victims of Crime: Highlights and Key Messages”, was released in August 2001.

The National Parole Board also held 31 sessions in smaller communities to seek input on how best to implement the proposed changes to the corrections and conditional release processes so they would be of greatest benefit to victims.

During the consultation process, victims told the government that they wanted a voice, a real say, in the justice process, not to be vengeful but rather to create fairness and to have their concerns considered in decisions that would have an impact on their safety, their families and their community.

In addition, they expressed a wish to be treated with respect in all dealings with the criminal justice system and its individual representatives. Victims reinforced the need for comprehensive victim centred information, information on their specific case, information regarding how the criminal justice system worked generally and information about where to obtain help and counselling.

I again congratulate the member for Nickel Belt. Our government has responded in the past to the needs of victims. There is more to be done. We look forward to working with the member in his initiative. We all share the same objective, that victims deserve our attention, they deserve the right to information and they deserve the right to participate in the justice system. As a government, we will strive to do that.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nickel Belt for his keen interest in the rights and the needs of victims. Certainly we have taken note of the challenges he poses in terms of what he is looking at for the government to act upon.

Before I get into my formal remarks, I want to ask the member a specific question. He talked about the fact that victims are invited to go to parole board hearings but often cannot afford the cost. If their expenses were reimbursable from the government, does the hon. member think there would be a big take-up by victims to attend parole board hearings? Would that be a beneficial thing to do?

[Canada Border Services Agency, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when these incidents happen at our borders the government is very concerned. As well, the member would know that with respect to the case where the officer was alone and certain things transpired which were not very favourable, it is under review and investigation.

Indeed, the way the Canada Border Services Agency is resourced is a matter that is always under review. We want to make sure that our officials are given the resources and tools necessary to keep our borders safe and secure.