Dave MacKenzie

[June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the question put to this House by my hon. colleague, the member for West Nova, regarding the United States' western hemisphere travel initiative.

This issue demands that we work effectively with our partners and our stakeholders in furthering the best interests of Canadians, not in working to antagonize our international partners, which would clearly not be effective. We believe that a sound approach that focuses on both advocacy and action will resolve this matter.

On the former, the Prime Minister has held open and frank discussions with President Bush in Cancun at the security and prosperity leaders' summit. They will meet again in July where the western hemisphere travel initiative will be a key item on the agenda.

The Prime Minister also recently met with provincial premiers and senior U.S. officials in Gimli, Manitoba, and continued to press the message that implementing this initiative without properly evaluating all the implications and doing the necessary due diligence is not in the interest of Canadians.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have met with their counterparts in Washington and both meetings have achieved success, both in establishing flexibility for implementation and in ensuring that Canada will continue to play a key role in considering options.

We are already seeing the results of this advocacy approach. Delay is increasingly being raised as a serious and recommended option in the U.S. That will allow time for the appropriate analysis to be done on technologies and infrastructure to ensure that it gets done right.

We are pleased to see that it is not only the Government of Canada that is carrying this message. Industry associations representing tourism and trade are being heard and are providing evidence of economic impacts that will be experienced in their areas should this initiative be implemented as it stands.

Canada's ambassador to the United States has been a strong advocate for additional economic impact analysis of the western hemisphere travel initiative and has made his case to Congress and a number of audiences both south of the border and here at home.

A number of high level meetings have been held with senior U.S. officials at both federal and state levels and I am pleased to report the Canadian government's position on this matter is held in high regard.

Progress is being made on several fronts, from the acknowledgement that alternative documents will be acceptable under this initiative to the increasing recognition that more needs to be done to properly evaluate new technologies and new infrastructure. This is both advocacy and action, but the government is doing even more.

Over $400 million in new funding was announced in budget 2006 for border security initiatives, including resources dedicated to ensuring that low risk travellers can cross the border quickly and securely using the latest biometric technologies.

This government is moving forward on other security commitments, such as equipping our border professionals with the tools and infrastructure they need to do their jobs and protect the safety and security of Canadians.

This kind of action is recognized in the United States and this government is doing its part to ensure the message is both clear and consistent. The Canadian border is open for legitimate trade and travel and closed to drug smugglers, organized crime and terrorists.

[Witness Protection Program Act, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the private member's bill brought forward by my colleague and compliment him and other colleagues for their hard work.

I would like to start by giving a summary of the bill itself. It states:

This enactment amends the Witness Protection Program Act. Its purpose is to extend the scope of the Witness Protection Program to include in this program persons whose life is in danger because of acts committed by their spouse.

Therefore, we are talking about other criminal acts committed by the spouse and not necessarily totally in relationship to the spouse.

This private member's bill proposed by the hon. member addresses one of the five priorities of our government, which is protecting families and communities. In budget 2006, we invested in this priority. We invested $161 million to hire 1,000 more RCMP officers and for federal prosecutors. We have put in $26 million for victims of crime. We have put in $20 million for crime prevention.

There is a long history of spousal violence. I would like to give the House some background. In this case, the hon. member is addressing an important concern. That concern is violence against spouses.

According to the Government of Canada's 2004 general social survey, it is estimated that 7% of Canadians 15 years of age and over, in a current, previous or common law union, experienced spousal violence in the previous five years. That is a horrendous number.

This same survey indicated that the rates of those affected by spousal violence by a current or previous partner are 7% for women and 6% for men. This represents an estimated 653,000 women and 546,000 men.

Women were also much more likely to report that they were the targets of more than 10 violent incidents at the hands of their partner and more likely to state that they were injured as a result of the violence.

Female victims of spousal violence were three times more likely than male victims of spousal violence to fear for their lives and three times more likely to take time off from their everyday activities because of the violence.

It was three times more likely that females feared for their lives compared to men. There is little doubt that spousal violence deserves ongoing attention in this country.

It is then also worth considering the focus of the hon. member's bill. As Bill C-286 focuses on the witness protection program, I would like to take some time to provide the House with some background about it.

The RCMP has been involved in witness protection matters since the 1980s. However, it has only been since 1996 that the legislative program was introduced.

This act, called the Witness Protection Program Act, or WPPA, provides legislative authority for the Commissioner of the RCMP to introduce protective measures to any person who has given information or evidence, or participated in an inquiry, investigation or prosecution, and whose involvement in the aforementioned has resulted in that person requiring protection.

The existing objective and scope of the WPPA could not accommodate the addition of a new group of victims that have significantly different needs.

The current act is, however, sufficiently broad in its definition of “witness” to include any person who reports to police an assault, whether or not that person is the spouse of the alleged attacker. The current program also is designed as a law enforcement tool to assist in the fight against domestic and transnational organized crime and, increasingly, in the fight against terrorism and the maintenance of national security.

The witness protection program in its existing format faces many challenges. I think we have heard that from members opposite. The complexities associated with organized crime investigations and the very real threat to witnesses in national security investigations have challenged the existing program's ability to provide the required services.

There is no doubt that this bill would create an increase in the number of requests for admission to the witness protection program, which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not currently have the capacity to manage. Additional training would also have to be provided to officers working in these specific areas and cases.

Although many of the protectees currently within the witness protection program have aided law enforcement in the investigation of significant organized crime enterprises, a new reality within Canada demands that services be expanded to those persons who aid law enforcement with national security and terrorism investigations.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police witness protection program can and will provide protection to victims of spousal abuse where the threat is assessed to warrant that level of police protection. The RCMP has advised the government that there are a number of spouses currently within the program.

The new identities for victims of abuse is an ad hoc program managed by Human Resources and Social Development Canada, which works with victims of spousal abuse and can provide effective protection measures when necessary. New identities for victims of abuse personnel work closely with local police services and other service providers to try to ensure victims of spousal abuse receive the help they need.

As many of the services and responsibilities for victims of violence are within the purview of the province and territories, significant consultations would be required prior to moving forward with any initiative that may be interpreted as extending federal involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In addition, considerable and meaningful consultation with these groups and organizations that provide services to the victims is essential. This is because it may be argued that many victims would express concern about being included in a program that is essentially designed to deal with criminals and that is not currently equipped to deal with the specific needs of a victim.

The idea of further support for victims of domestic violence is a worthwhile goal. However, consideration of any new initiatives to protect or support victims of abuse, particularly if this would entail an expanded role for the RCMP or the federal government, would require careful and extensive examination of the policy and legal issues involved as well as the resources available.

Before concluding on a specific policy direction, it would be necessary to consider the extent and degree to which the current witness protection program currently provides a framework for protecting victims of spousal abuse. Any such initiatives would also require approval from the House.

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter.

[June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been extremely active in working with the Americans to come up with mutually acceptable solutions to enhance border security without harming tourism and trade.

Over the past 100 days, the government has worked hard to stand up for the interests of Canadians on this matter. The Prime Minister has established a constructive dialogue with President Bush on border issues and the President has acknowledged that his government is looking at solutions that address Canada's concerns.

The Minister of Public Safety has held discussions with his counterpart, as has the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Our ambassador has made this his top priority, after helping to solve the softwood lumber issue. Numerous meetings have been held with senior White House, administration and state officials.

These efforts are paying off. Already a number of positive developments suggest that there may be greater flexibility on this issue, including the possibility of a delay. There are no guarantees that recent efforts to alter the course of this law will be successful. That is why the government will continue to press its case with the U.S. government and why it will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of all Canadians.

[June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the question put to the House by my colleague, the member for Windsor West, regarding the United States western hemisphere travel initiative. The member has in the past raised the issue of the need for a strategy to address the potential impact that this initiative may have on Canadians should it be implemented as it was set out in the law passed by Congress. The government has been clear in its strategy of advocacy with our American counterparts and also on implementing new measures such as the more than $400 million recently allocated to border security issues in budget 2006.

These are solid planks in a strategy that is making progress on this issue, but more is being done. Shortly the government will launch a new website dedicated to dealing with the western hemisphere travel initiative. This website will communicate important and timely information directly to Canadians to ensure that they are fully aware of the situation and the requirements for travel. The government is making every effort to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to make informed decisions, such as what documents they can use now to travel to the United States and what is being done to facilitate and enhance cross-border travel and trade.

Today for example, Canadians need to know that they can continue to cross the border with documents that convey identity and nationality data such as driver's licences and birth certificates. They can also enter each country using their NEXUX, FAST and Air NEXUS program membership. Canadians can also use their passport, one of the most secure documents of its kind in the world and one that will be accepted even after any new documentary requirements are implemented.

The Government of Canada recognizes and shares the U.S. commitment to a secure border. Both countries are working collaboratively to develop a plan to implement the WHTI in a manner that addresses the threat of terrorism while facilitating the flow of legitimate travellers and goods across our shared border. It is one of the most important bilateral border issues facing Canada and the United States at this time.

The potential impact of the WHTI is now well established our country, but more work has to be done in the U.S. We continue to call for more economic impact studies south of the border as we believe the effects upon the U.S., particularly the northern border states, will be even more pronounced in terms of real costs.

The message is being heard. Recently at a one day conference on international issues in Gimli, Manitoba, a number of high ranking officials from both Canada and the U.S. voiced their concerns. The Prime Minister attended this event and assured Canadians that this continued to be a priority for this government. He also made the case for Canada's position in Cancun at the Security and Prosperity Partnership leaders summit. He will continue this frank and open discussion with President Bush in Washington in July.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have held productive consultations with their American counterparts. The U.S. government recognizes our commitment to resolve this issue on behalf of Canadians while respecting the security concerns of Congress. In fact, the U.S. Secretary of State recently remarked that the U.S. is very comfortable with border security cooperation from Canada.

The government is making good progress on this issue and this is being recognized. We are not complacent now and we will continue to work to preserve our historic, unique cross-border relationship with the U.S.

[National Police Week, May 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honour of National Police Week in Canada, which runs from May 14 to May 20.

Safe streets and low crime rates have long been a hallmark of the Canadian quality of life. National Police Week is a chance for all of us to show our appreciation for these outstanding men and women who, as we were recently reminded, place their lives on the line every day to help keep our communities safe.

For 30 years I served with the Woodstock City Police and I can personally attest to the commitment and dedication police officers bring to their jobs every day to make our families safer, our neighbourhoods stronger and our country more secure.

This government is firmly committed to ensuring that police have the support and resources they need to tackle crime. That is why we have announced a series of new measures, such as making our laws stronger and putting more police officers on the streets.

Today and for the duration of National Police Week, I encourage all Canadians to join me in thanking the many selfless men and women in our local, provincial, and national police forces for their professionalism and courage in ensuring the safety of all Canadians.

[Canada-U.S. Border, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Peterborough for probably one of the best questions of the day.

Our new government is committed to protecting Canadian families and communities. We have backed up our commitment to security by investing $1.4 billion in the budget for more police, border security and public safety. This includes $101 million, over two years, to begin arming border officers and eliminating work-alone posts. We value the work of the men and women on the front lines, and a promise made, a promise kept.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the members opposite in this debate and they frequently go back to 1993. It is unfortunate that part of their memory does not really include the big picture in 1993.

Among the other things that the previous Liberal government inherited in 1993 was a free trade agreement, the GST, and a budget laid out by the previous government that directed the future. It was also in 1993, when we were near the end of perhaps the worst recession the world had seen since the 1930s. The Liberals happened to inherit a changing economy and a changing world. Employment was going up in all the free world. It was not a great deal of what the Liberals did; it is what happened in the rest of the world.

The member opposite talks about what the Liberals would have done and what that party was going to do. He comes from a riding that is fairly broad, as he says, and well laid out across a great part of our country. It is an important part of our country. The Liberals were prepared to put $5 billion into child care spaces. Would the member opposite tell us how many child care spaces were to be created in his riding?

[The Budget, May 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member speak about cuts that were made in provincial budgets, particularly one province. She spent a great deal of time talking about cuts in programs and cuts in budgets. I wonder if she can tell the House where those provinces should have made their cuts, when the federal government made its massive cuts in the nineties.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Do it outside the House.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member opposite and I have a number of issues with what he brought forward today. My first observation is that there was something wrong with an opposition that brought to the fore things that were going on. My guess is that his version of the accountability act would be hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, and for some reason or other Canadians should be satisfied with that.

I also question his recollection of history when he talked about a number of former Conservative members being convicted and sent to jail. I question his knowledge of history and ask him to present the names of the individuals from this federal party who went to jail. I do not think it occurred. I think he has come up with something that does not exist.

I would really like to know if the hon. member could tell us if there is something wrong in limiting political donations beyond where his party was. He takes great pride in the limit to $1,000. This accountability act will limit corporate donations to zero. What is the problem with that?

I think those issues are important to Canadians. I would like to have his comments on that.