37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 083
CONTENTS
Friday, September 21, 2001
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Customs Act |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Recycling |
|
|
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway,
Lib.) |
|
|
Interfaith Prayer
Service |
|
|
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East,
Lib.) |
|
|
United States of
America |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Violence Against Women |
|
|
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park,
Lib.) |
|
|
United States of
America |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Walk of Hope |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Odina Desrochers
(Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ) |
|
|
Dystonia |
|
|
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Economy |
|
|
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Budget Surpluses |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Standing Committee on
Finance |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Stock Market
Speculation |
|
|
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Privilege |
|
|
Statements by
Members |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed
to)
|
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Government Response to
Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Interparliamentary
Delegations |
|
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Customs Act |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Duncan |
|
|
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, September 21, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1000)
[Translation]
Customs Act
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.)
moved that Bill S-23,
an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts
, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on
Bill S-23, a bill aimed at modernizing the entire administration of Canadian
customs operations. It addresses an action plan that will make it possible to
have better risk management at Canada's borders and to meet the needs of the
entire Canadian population in this modern age, that is the era of
globalization, and its realities, of which we are all aware.
As I said earlier this week, it is particularly
important that this bill be passed without delay so that we may have the tools
we need to enhance our capacity to recognize high-risk individuals and goods at
the border before they enter Canada and North America.
I wish to reiterate in the House that the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency takes the security of Canada's borders very
seriously. We work in close collaboration with our federal and international
partners, sharing information and technologies.
We also have a very close working relationship with our
counterparts in U.S. customs and immigration. We are however also aware that
border management is a constantly evolving process. That is why we have
established a plan on which we have been working for some time.
Thanks to the changes proposed by Bill S-23, the agency
will be able to focus its efforts on high risk travellers and goods while
simplifying border crossings for those in the low risk category.
We will be in a position, before these reach the
border, to combine risk management techniques and the transmission of
information obtained with leading-edge technology and through the use of
pre-arrival authorization mechanisms. This will bring about a fundamental
change to the way the customs agency operates.
I must reiterate that prior to the tragic events in the
United States and even more so since, the agency has always had as its priority
the security of Canadians, protection of our border, the integrity of major
trade corridors and reinforcement of the North American perimeter.
[English]
The risk management approach to border management
called for in the customs action plan will enable the government to better
uphold these priorities. While we must take measures to enhance the safety and
security of Canadians and our border, let us not forget our other important
responsibility of ensuring the prosperity of the Canadian economy.
International trade and tourism are considered the
lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Let us not forget our accountability to
Canadians to ensure their continuity.
In order to support the government's international
trade agreements and its agenda for trade and tourism, the agency needs to
modernize the way it carries out its customs operations.
In today's ever changing environment, one of our key
goals is to maintain the flow of legitimate trade and travel across the
border.
As we know, the final elimination of duties between
Canada and the U.S. has further stimulated trade and enhanced both our
economies. Over the past five years the volume of trade and travel has steadily
increased. Every day we process 40,000 commercial entries representing well
over $300 billion worth of import trade each year.
More than 100 million travellers cross our border each
year and over 80% of these travellers come from the U.S.
(1005)
The CCRA has met the challenges of the last decade in
responding to globalization, changing business practices and advancing
technology. All this economic activity has had a major impact on customs
operations on both sides of the border.
We are in good shape today with a range of enforcement
initiatives and services that support the protection of Canadians and the
competitiveness of business. We are certainly proud of our successes so far.
However, we are also aware of the gap that is growing
between the increasing workload and the resources we have available to achieve
our goals. This has forced us to re-evaluate how we carry out our dual
mandate.
By launching our customs action plan, we have already
taken a huge step to meet this challenge. The next step takes place now with
the passing of Bill S-23.
[Translation]
Our customs action plan is a crucial investment for the
future. In proposing innovative solutions to today's problems, the plan ensures
that our customs' processes will not stand in the way of Canadians' prosperity.
The action plan provides for a complete risk management
system integrating the principles of pre-arrival data input and a system of
prior approval, all thanks to technology.
To support this approach we are putting in place a fair
and effective system of sanctions. We believe Bill S-23 provides practical
measures to deal with non-compliance, from warnings to fines. These measures
should have an impact on those who choose not to obey the rules.
Bill S-23 provides options that will facilitate border
crossing and make it more productive in today's world. In essence, businesses
and individuals with a good history of compliance should be able to benefit.
Compliance with the law is the key to the success of
this approach. Bill S-23 aims at improving compliance levels. We believe that
improved service and simplified processing will encourage voluntary
compliance.
Naturally, in keeping with the other part of our
mandate which is to protect Canadian society, we will continue random checks
and monitoring periodically to ensure compliance with Canada's customs laws and
regulations.
As part of the customs action plan, we will be
implementing this fall the customs self-assessment program. This program is a
direct result of our consultations with members of the business community who
consider it their highest priority. The program is based on the principles of
risk management which provide for agreements with proven clients.
Participating importers who have been rigorously
selected prior to their approval, will be able to use their own administrative
system to meet our requirements for receipts and trade data. This will be a
comprehensive self-assessment system supported by our audit
activities.
The program will also simplify the customs process by
offering increased speed and certainty to pre-approved importers who use the
services of pre-approved carriers and drivers to import low risk goods. There
is no doubt this is a great step forward in border management.
The monetary penalties set out in Bill S-23 aim to
establish fair rules for businesses in Canada. This comprehensive set of
penalties will encourage people to observe the law, thanks to a series of
penalties that will vary in severity depending on the type and severity of the
offence committed.
In this context, the agency is aware that some of its
clients may require a certain amount of time to familiarize themselves with all
of the requirements with which they will need to comply. This is why importers
will be given a transition period through April 1, 2002.
However, in the case of the customs self-assessment
program, some of the penalties will take effect as soon as the program is
implemented.
(1010)
[English]
The passing of Bill S-23 would also bring exciting
options for travellers. Many people will have heard of the CANPASS highway
program which was pilot tested in a number of locations in recent years. Under
this permit based program, travellers pre-approved by a rigorous training
process are permitted to use designated lanes at border crossings.
Another example is the expedited passenger processing
system for travellers. Under this new program, EPPS participants will be able
to use an automated kiosk that will confirm their identity and membership in
the program.
Another initiative is the harmonized highway pilot,
also known as Nexus. Its goal is to provide a seamless service to pre-approved
low risk travellers entering Canada and the U.S. at these border points using
technology and a common card.
I believe these initiatives will serve Canadians well
by improving the flow of people and goods across the border and by
strengthening our ability to do job number one: protecting
Canadians.
Amendments to the Customs Act proposed in Bill S-23
would allow for the introduction of advanced passenger information and
passenger notification record. With those programs, customs officers will
receive certain prescribed information from commercial transportation companies
and drivers, crew members and passengers in advance of their arrival in
Canada.
It is important to clarify to the hon. member that this
is not new information. Customs officers can obtain the same information
through questioning travellers and examining their travel documents. However,
by receiving this information in advance, customs officers will be able to make
enlightened decisions prior to the arrival of people thereby making it easier
to identify high risk travellers and facilitating the movement of legitimate
travellers.
The agency will continue to be vigilant and will
conduct random customs examinations. The instincts of our well trained,
experienced customs officers will continue to be our guiding force.
(1015)
[Translation]
There are other examples that demonstrate the
importance of this bill. This is why I cannot insist enough on the importance
of moving forward with Bill S-23. I believe that this legislation is a bold and
innovative step in the modernization and management of Canada's borders.
Bill S-23 will help Canadians compete and prosper on
international markets. It will allow the agency to help maximize the flow of
commercial cargo and travellers in good standing. The bill will also provide us
with the tools we need to better protect our borders and our country and it
will allow us to ensure the safety of our communities and our families. I am
sure we all agree that Canadians expect nothing less.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal
opposition to address the second reading of Bill S-23, an act to amend the
Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill S-23 comes
before the House at a great time of crisis when the eyes of Canadians, and
indeed the world, are upon our borders.
I wish to thank our customs officers who, in the
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, have been under incredible
pressure working extra long hours thoroughly checking thousands of travellers
seeking entrance to Canada. They are doing a tremendous and extremely valuable
job with limited human, technological and financial resources.
I will address the initiatives enacted by Bill S-23 and
their impact on our economy and trade relations; and, more important, the
importance of our trade relationship with the United States and what is needed
to protect and stabilize that relationship.
We are a trading nation. Our economy has positioned
itself over the past decade to facilitate, expand and promote our international
trade relationships. None of these relationships are as crucial as our
relationship with the United States.
As a result of the FTA and NAFTA the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency handles over $500 billion in cross-border trade and processes
more than 108 million travellers each year. These numbers dictate that
efficient systems need to be implemented to keep pace.
The Canada-United States accord on our shared border
was signed in 1995 with a number of goals: to promote international trade; to
streamline processes for legitimate travellers and commercial goods; to provide
enhanced protection against drug smuggling and the illegal entrants of people;
and to reduce costs to both governments. The initiatives we are debating today
were derived to fulfill the accord's goals.
The customs action plan began in 1998 involving
nationwide consultations with groups representing trade and traveller groups to
streamline the processing of goods and travellers based on risk assessment and
a fair, effective sanctions regime. I commend the minister and his department
for seeking industry input to reflect its needs and realities in these
amendments.
The Canpass permit program contained in the bill allows
travellers who frequently cross the border by air or surface for legitimate
purposes to register with the government and pass through the border without
having to stop for questioning. These participants are thoroughly checked
before being accepted to the program and are subject to random spot checks to
ensure compliance.
The administrative monetary penalties system, or AMPS,
is a new regime to help ensure compliance. In the past, penalties and sanctions
were rigid and in many cases too extreme for small infractions. For example,
the seizure of a vehicle is hardly an appropriate penalty for a $100
discrepancy in declared goods.
The AMPS regime sanctions range from simple warnings to
punitive fines of $25,000 to match the severity and frequency of infractions.
The flexibility and discretion facilitated by this regime would allow fines to
be administered on the basis of fairness.
One of the Canadian Alliance's ongoing concerns with
our airports and ports of entry has been the ability of Canadian officials to
determine the identity of those arriving and the ability to separate arriving
passengers from other people in the plaza. We have called on the government to
utilize electronic technology to forward travel document information from
departure to destination to deal with those who arrive at customs without
identification.
Thousands of refugee claimants have arrived in Canada
without travel documents or identification, but they had documents when they
boarded a plane to get to Canada. The advance passenger information system, or
API, requires commercial carriers to provide information in advance of arrival
with respect to drivers, crew members and passengers.
(1020)
This is a step in the right direction. However much
more is needed to adequately meet the needs of Canadian security.
Bill S-23 would allow for the examination of export
mail. As a Canadian dedicated to the protection and advancement of personal
liberties, I am uncomfortable voting for such an amendment. However I
understand the rationale for such procedures.
I am concerned about the frequency and discretion of
those who would be permitted to intercept and examine outgoing mail. We have
experienced many complaints of overzealous examination of inbound mail.
In my riding of Edmonton--Strathcona, in an area called
Old Strathcona, there are a number of import based industries on the retail
front. Some of these industries import on a regular basis various artifacts
from Africa and Latin America. One of these importers has been in business for
over 10 years. They have an ongoing problem with customs at the border when
many of their products come into the country.
Some of the changes prescribed in the bill would help
to address some of those problems. One of the biggest complaints made by these
importers is the fact that when their goods come from customs there is not the
required due diligence in respect of their products being in the right
condition so they can sell them.
One of my constituents sustained $60,000 worth of
damage to his goods because of the way customs searched through all the
products that came through without proper attention to due diligence. That is
outrageous. In some cases that can make or break certain businesses, depending
upon the kind of business they are in.
This is unfortunate and it is due to certain rules
currently in the Customs Act that allow customs officials to check these
products. Once they start rifling through them the insurance on these packages
is no longer valid. Once damage has been done the recipient cannot get
reimbursed for any loss. That is a big problem.
This is one of my concerns that relates to personal
liberties because we need to protect the flow of goods coming through. We need
to be thorough and do the proper checks. There is no doubt about that. However
we must respect people's property, their businesses and their livelihoods. If
that is not done effectively then many business owners would potentially lose
millions of dollars and unfortunately have products they cannot use or
sell.
The initiatives and programs contained in Bill S-23
would benefit many Canadian companies in their administrative tasks by allowing
Canadians to import materials and products with greater ease. However
reciprocal programs on the part of the United States are lacking. The programs
do very little to help Canadian companies access American markets. These
initiatives do not help Canadian employees for whom the prosperity of their
families and livelihoods are contingent upon unfettered access to the United
States.
The Canada-U.S. border is a clash in fundamental
philosophies. The U.S. customs service believes that its primary mandate is
enforcement, whereas Canada Customs believes that its primary mandate is to
liberate trade restrictions and collect revenues.
In light of the terrorist attacks in the United States
on September 11, our border security has come under increased scrutiny. The
debate over liberalization of border procedures may only be entertained within
a greater debate on national security, in particular border
integrity.
We can have it both ways: a border that expedites
international trade while closing its doors to terrorism, organized crime and
smugglers. What is required is a principled plan and the political will to defy
bureaucratic agendas, to ignore special interest interventions and to resist
the vices of political expediency.
(1025)
What is needed is a government that exhibits leadership
and resolve, two qualities yet to be displayed by the administration. Since the
tragedy of September 11, the Prime Minister has done little more than offer
platitudes and deflect blame. To continue along this path would only result in
our economic peril. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said last
week:
Some nations need to be more vigilant
against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the
U.S. to remain the same. We are going to make it clear to them that this will
be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their
relationship with the United States. |
He also added that for those nations that do a better
job of policing their borders the U.S. would work with them. Last night
President Bush stated that there is no truer friend to the United States than
Great Britain. When Canada markets itself to the world our greatest selling
feature is our proximity to the United States and the privilege of being its
most favoured nation. What happens if that relationship were to be
diminished?
I know that a politician's enemy is a hypothetical
question. However I question how hypothetical it actually is. I read in the
National Post that Honda was reconsidering investing in Canada and was
contemplating redirecting that investment to the United States due to the
uncertainty surrounding the flow across the Canada-U.S. border.
In light of recent tragedies Canada has been given an
opportunity to address our security deficiencies. There is an inherent
responsibility on the part of the government to do so. By taking immediate
action the government would not be capitulating to American interests but
rather responding in a practical and prudent manner.
I emphasize the importance of securing and expanding
our trade relationship with the United States. There is no turning back from
free trade.
No issue is of greater urgency than the security of the
North American perimeter. Our walls must be reinforced and entry and exit
security must be improved. By threatening the openness we have enjoyed along
the Canada-U.S. border we jeopardize billions of dollars of trade and tens of
thousands of Canadian jobs. Our very standard of living is at stake as over 87%
of our trade is done with the United States.
This concept is based on common sense. Canada and the
United States, through NAFTA and numerous other accords and treaties, are the
world's closest allies. We share the longest undefended border in the world. If
we want to maintain that relationship we must ascertain who is crossing that
border by first of all identifying who is in our respective countries. Only
when we can confirm the integrity of our external borders can we minimize the
scrutiny of our shared border. A bilateral initiative with the United States to
share border integrity is integral.
In terms of immigration, those who argue deceptively
that strength in screening approaches are anti-immigrant are mistaken. Our
immigration policies must be generous. However they must be rigorous. We can no
longer have a policy of admit first, ask questions later.
Our policies and laws must protect the lives and
livelihoods of Canadians. We must weigh the concerns about the safety of our
citizens and the preservation of an open trade relationship with the United
States against our humanitarian responsibility to receive genuine refugees.
Thousands of displaced persons find refuge in Canada
every year. The vast majority are legitimate refugees. Many others are seeking
to circumvent the immigration system or gain access to Canada for the purpose
of criminal and terrorist activity. The latter comprise the minority of those
seeking asylum. However they have an astute knowledge of our laws and know how
to navigate their way through the system and carry out their agenda to the
detriment of Canadian society as a whole. Collateral damage occurs through
association by creating a negative impression of their ethnic or religious
community in Canada.
(1030)
The Canadian Alliance does not criticize the federal
government's underlying intentions for granting refuge. Our grievances are with
the process. We want to help as many legitimate refugees as possible, however,
we believe stringent and secure refugee determination processes are in the best
interests of genuine refugees seeking entrance to Canada.
In order to have entrance to Canada granted, the
identity of applicants must be ascertained. Their whereabouts while in Canada
must be monitored. Those whose identities and backgrounds cannot be determined
must be detained and those whose applications for asylum are denied must be
deported forthwith. When it comes to accountability, this is the bare
minimum.
A message must be sent out to the world that Canada is
a home for those in genuine need of humanitarian support, however, those
attempting to take advantage and abuse our humanitarian generosity will be
punished severely and swiftly.
The adjudication of refugee cases must be performed by
qualified officers. Political organizers, fundraisers and unsuccessful
candidates are not qualified to perform such a rigorous mandate.
As members know, I am quite sensitive to the issue of
refugees and Canada opening its arms to refugees. As like many in the House, my
family came to Canada as refugees. We fled the dictatorship of Idi Amin in
Uganda where our family was unfortunately kicked out in the early 1970s, three
generations living in a country we called home, where we built our own wealth,
friendship and families. Freedom was ripped away from us overnight without any
justification except that we were discriminated against because of the colour
of our skin. We did not fit into that particular community.
In that unfortunate event in Uganda, my home country
where I was born, we were fortunate that we were able to come to Canada. Canada
welcomed us with open arms. If we look at the number of refugees during that
period of time from that particular region of the country and see how they have
contributed to this country with all the people who are either working now as
professionals, adding to the economy and to the community by volunteering, it
is fantastic to see those sorts of rewards that Canada was able to reap by
having such a generous and humanitarian policy for settling
refugees.
That is what we need to focus on. We need to continue
to allow Canadians such as my family, who are so thankful that Canada welcomed
us here with open arms, and others who want to come to this country, to take
advantage of the opportunity and not abuse the laws. As I mentioned, those who
abuse the laws are in the minority. We need to make sure that people coming to
the country are not done in by the laws of this country, especially by those
who unfortunately want to abuse those laws. I am sensitive to that. I encourage
that. As a refugee I feel that we have to do as much as we can, but we have to
be rigorous.
Some of the most ardent proponents of reforming
Canada's immigration and refugee determination laws are new immigrants
themselves. They all went through the hoops and met every requirement. Not only
are they upset with those who abuse the refugee system, they are livid with
those of their community who abuse the system and commit crimes in Canada,
casting a negative light upon their community.
The government is not doing its job properly. This is
evident with the backlash experienced by Canada's Islamic and Sikh communities.
Government mismanagement of the refugee system is a disservice to the immigrant
communities that are working hard to contribute to a country which has given
them so much.
In conclusion I would like to state the fact that the
bill was first introduced in the Senate, which is unelected and lacks
legitimacy to address legislation prior to the House of Commons, and I would
like to state the fact that the Canadian Alliance demand is for anti-terrorist
legislation to strengthen national security and eradicate terrorist activity
within Canada.
(1035)
I move:
That the motion be amended by
replacing all the words after the word that with the following: |
|
this
House declines to give second reading to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs
Act and to make related amendments to other acts, since the principle of the
bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's
borders with respect to terrorist activities. |
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron
(Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent
of the House to split my time with my colleague from
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the
unanimous consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron:
Mr. Speaker, in my first speech to the House since the
tragic events of September 11, I would like to take a few moments to extend my
most sincere condolences to the people who have been saddened by this terrible
event, on behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille--Îles, the people of Quebec
and of Canada. I wish to assure them that they are in our hearts, in our
thoughts and in our prayers.
Moving now to Bill S-23 which was passed by the Senate
on June 7, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill provided certain major
amendments are passed.
I would remind hon. members that the Bloc Quebecois has
always been in favour of the movement of goods and services between countries,
and of free trade. The proof of this is, in fact, that the government of Quebec
and the Bloc Quebecois were the first to approve NAFTA under the Mulroney
government. At that time, I would also remind hon. members, our friends across
the way were against it.
The Bloc Quebecois and the government of Quebec were
also in favour of the open skies project. They are in favour of the FTAA. The
Bloc Quebecois has always been a supporter of free trade, provided individuals'
rights and culture are always respected.
I will discuss the background of Bill S-23. This bill
started out as a draft bill in the fall of 1998 when Revenue Canada, which has
now become the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, published a discussion paper
entitled “Customs Blueprint”.
In that document the department pledged first to
improve the services provided; second, to ensure that businesses and travellers
comply with the regulations; third, to identify efforts to end illegal
activities and threats to health and safety; fourth, to promote certainty and
consistency for travellers and business people.
Following this discussion paper the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency released the customs action plan for the years 2000-04. Customs
new approach is based on a comprehensive risk management system that integrates
the principles of self-assessment and information collection, as well as
special authorizations regarding the main following features: processing
techniques based on risks for travellers and business people; streamlined
processes when risks are low; more thorough processes when risks are greater or
when they are unknown.
Can we include in the unknown risks the new unknown
risk for everyone posed by terrorism? I think so. As for the second principle,
it was based on a fair and effective sanctions system.
I agree that this new approach is good in itself and
implements a way of doing cross-border trading and travel much more
expeditiously. It should be noted that the bill seems more geared to
Canada-United States transportation. More importantly though, it could be
adjusted to international travel in the near or not too distant middle future.
I do not remember seeing any mention of marine transport in the bill, but we
should start thinking about it.
(1040)
This bill can therefore be summed up as follows: first,
it provides for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada;
second, it provides for streamlined clearance procedures for low risk
passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information; third, it
provides for new requirements in respect of the provision of information
obtained under that act; fourth, it provides for monetary penalties in respect
of designated contraventions; fifth, it extends the deadline for requesting
reviews and appeals beyond current time limits; sixth, it harmonizes provisions
for the collection of amounts owing under that act with those of the Income Tax
Act and the Excise Tax Act; seventh, it makes technical and housekeeping
amendments; and eighth, it makes related amendments to other acts.
But let us be prudent. I would like the minister
responsible for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to be very prudent. My
question this morning is this: Will Bill S-23 address all the shortcomings
identified by the auditor general in his April 11, 2000 report with respect to
the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency? Let us again look at what the auditor
general said in his report.
We found that risk assessment is
incomplete: Customs does not have important information it needs from a variety
of departments and agencies to fully assess the risks its inspectors face. It
needs to know where the risks are highest so it can determine the best way to
control them. We have recommended that Customs work more diligently to obtain
information on the risks arising from the responsibilities it carries out at
ports of entry on behalf of other departments—Citizenship and Immigration
Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example—and
include them in its national risk assessment. It also needs to have up-to-date
memoranda of understanding with those departments, setting out their respective
roles and responsibilities. |
This is a bit worrisome.
Another aspect of this legislation concerns us
considerably, and I refer to mail searches. The bill provides a means for
searches of all mail of more than 30 grams in weight. This is disturbing
because it is a form of interfering with people's fundamental rights. When the
bill was under consideration in Senate committee, the Canadian bar submitted an
excellent brief on March 15, 2001 and I invite the Minister responsible for the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to note the position taken by the Canadian
Bar Association. The points it makes are certainly important.
In closing, one point in this bill is of concern. It is
the power accorded the minister. The bill also contains many regulations. Most
of the points of law will be resolved by regulations.
(1045)
The minister will have to define and make public the
regulations he intends to make on security at Canadian customs so that they may
be debated here.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the law.
Indeed, goods and people must be expedited through customs, but not at all
cost. I think the minister will have to make certain changes to his bill for us
to support it completely.
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill which is
of critical importance to the future of international trade.
The bill provides for:
|
—the
expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada; |
|
(b) streamlined clearance procedures for low risk
passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information; |
|
(c) new requirements in respect of the provision of
information obtained under that Act; |
|
(d) monetary penalties in respect of designated
contraventions; |
We can only support any government initiative designed
to facilitate trade and speed up customs procedures. We can only support a bill
that can improve these aspects and thus ensure that our country can export its
goods and services more easily to the United States and even elsewhere in the
world while promoting cordial relations with our trading partners.
This is why we support in principle Bill S-23
introduced by our learned colleague the hon. member for Outremont.
However we must be extremely careful because the
government has the unfortunate tendency to introduce bills that refer to all
sorts of provisions and regulations that have yet to be drafted. When
regulations can be twice as long as the bill itself, it is cause for concern
because we are not getting the full picture.
Several of the bills introduced by the government in
recent years had this unfortunate feature. For example, the Bank Act provides
that regulations will come later. In the case of certain provisions, we are
still waiting for these regulations.
Another problem with Bill S-23 that also existed with
the Bank Act is the very broad discretionary powers given to the minister
responsible, in this case the Minister of National Revenue, who is in charge of
customs.
We must avoid this kind of situation since we can only
evaluate a bill on its merits if it includes specific provisions. In the bill
before us, there are at least three issues that deserve a much more indepth
review than is now possible without the regulations.
First, when the government talks about expanding the
CANPASS program so that more exporters and importers can move their goods more
rapidly through customs simply by showing their CANPASS membership card, we may
well wonder how we can evaluate the fairness and impact of this measure if we
do not know what criteria is used when deciding whether certain exporters or
importers should be allowed to qualify for the CANPASS program. They will be
able to pass through Canadian and U.S. customs more quickly. Another category
will be refused CANPASS accreditation after their cases are
considered.
How are we to evaluate the fairness of this decision?
What avenues of appeal are open to exporters and importers? It is important
that the criteria for accreditation be clearly known.
Why? Because those who qualify under the CANPASS
program will have a competitive advantage over their competitors. Why? Because
they will be able to point to their CANPASS accreditation as a business
advantage and tell their clients “I guarantee you that there will be no wait at
Canadian customs. I will be able to clear the goods, and you will receive them
faster than if you use my competitor who does not have a CANPASS”.
(1050)
It becomes a bit like the ISO standard in industry. It
becomes a symbol of recognition of the performance of these exporters or
importers. If a company obtains CANPASS accreditation and another company in
the same sector or in another Canadian province does not, we need to know why.
Because the former has an advantage over the latter, as it would in the case of
ISO standards, because it can show that it is able to expedite its shipping
contracts for its clients.
The second example concerns the system for expediting
passenger movement. We have no indication of the criteria which will be used.
It is a bit disturbing when the minister is being given discretionary power, or
we are waiting for regulations yet to come, but we do not know the criteria
that will be used in awarding these accreditations.
This would also allow—and the privacy commissioner
highlighted this problem with Bill S-23—Canada Customs agents to open packages
weighing over 30 grams. Once again this raises some issues. Surely there is
some way to limit this power to open mail without a warrant and without any
legal reason. Surely there is some way to better define this aspect of the
bill. This is what we will work on in the coming weeks.
While we support this bill in theory since it will help
simplify trade, we have some serious concerns with regard to provisions
contained within the bill. To this end, we are asking—and I am sure that we
will have the co-operation of the minister responsible—that the minister
provide us with the bulk of the regulations at the same time as we are studying
the bill in committee specifically, so that we can get the whole picture of the
situation.
Incidentally, I would invite the minister responsible
for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to come up with a work plan to review
new provisions regarding international trade, as well as the existing ones, in
light of the new circumstances, that is, the tragedy that took place some ten
days ago in the United States.
Obviously, increasing security means tightening certain
customs regulations and increasing the resources allocated to border
surveillance. I hope the minister already has a work plan to review how Canada
protects its borders and to ensure that this is improved in view of the new and
terrifying events that took place in the United States the week before
last.
Finally, I would ask the minister responsible, because
this is part of his mandate, to try to see how we could neutralize, in the near
future, the work of money laundering organizations that conduct their
activities all over the world and often have a base of operations in Canada. I
would ask the minister—because it is ultimately his responsibility—to review,
in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, even though it is the Minister of
National Revenue who is responsible for their implementation, the tax treaties
signed with some countries that are deemed to be tax havens.
Since 1993 we have been asking the government to review
these tax treaties, to provide more resources so as to put pressure on these
tax havens to stop their unfair way of processing tax resources and
particularly money laundering activities, given what happened in the United
States and given the statements made by the western world regarding the fight
against tax havens and money laundering, which are the source of wealth of
terrorist groups. The government should take a serious look at this issue. I
will complete my speech after oral question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
(1055)
[English]
Recycling
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members of the House to join
with me today in recognizing the 20th anniversary of Ontario's blue box
recycling program.
The blue box was the brainchild of Kitchener resident
Nyle Ludolph, a garbage collector with Laidlaw, who helped launch the program
in 1981. Two hundred and fifty Kitchener homes received the first blue boxes
and the program was soon expanded to 34,000 homes.
Ontario residents were eager to make use of the blue
box in their efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse. Today approximately four
million Ontario households have curb or depot access to recycling. In 1999
successful recycling helped divert 658,000 tonnes of waste from Ontario
landfill sites.
The blue box idea has been adopted by numerous homes
throughout Canada, the United States, France, Australia and the U.K. Recycling
is one of the simple ways Canadians can build a healthier and cleaner
environment.
I ask hon. members of the House to join me in
recognizing this important anniversary.
* * *
(1100)
National Security
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are critical of the
Liberal government's poor response to the tragedies of September 11 and its
reluctance to take the security of our nation seriously.
British Columbians want strong anti-terrorist
legislation to protect our citizens. We want our coastline, ports and airlines
secured. We want immediate action to detain and deport anyone illegally in
Canada or failed refugee claimants linked to terrorist organizations. We want
our military and law enforcement agencies to have the resources they need to
get the job done when it comes to fighting terrorism.
The horrendous events of September 11 showed us the
folly of depleting B.C.'s emergency response capabilities. The government
closed CFB Chilliwack and crippled our military, naval and coast guard
resources. It has given British Columbia meaningless promises about emergency
assistance being dispatched from Edmonton. That is not good enough.
British Columbia is giving fair warning to the
government to get serious about protecting the security of all
Canadians.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
Mr. Speaker, I stand today with a heavy heart to extend
our condolences to the people whose lives were tragically violated on the
island of the Manhattans. I pray that our nation and all nations of the world
find peace regardless of the tests and obstacles that confront us. We must be
united as nations to find true peace.
In this reflection I must acknowledge that the
constitution of the United States of America was virtually based on the great
law of peace of the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois Confederacy.
The gifts and responsibilities of the indigenous
nations of our country and our continent can help us in our time of need. We
have no greater need now than peace and security when the threat is at our
doorstep and our campfires.
I draw to the attention of all Canadians that we have a
responsibility to future generations. Let us recognize Canada as a nation of
rivers, for water is a source of life. Canada is a river of nations and it is
in those relations that we will find true peace.
* * *
Terrorism
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the recent tragedy in the United States
caused by the unthinkable terrorist attacks has shocked North America. I know I
speak for all my constituents of Vancouver Kingsway in condemning the
terrorists who caused the death and destruction.
Before we identify the responsible terrorists we must
not project our anger toward innocent people. I remind Canadians that racism
and violence against Arab Canadians will not be tolerated in our humanistic
society. This is a time for all of us to come together to condemn violence and
strengthen our freedoms and democratic values.
On behalf of my constituents of Vancouver Kingsway I
extend our support and compassion to the United States during this dark period
in its history.
* * *
Interfaith Prayer
Service
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, after the events of September 11 many
people of faith were left bereft of comfort. Some were wondering whether the
powerful need to seek justice would unfairly target a certain faith or certain
ethnicities. Indeed there was evidence to support those fears.
The Parliament of Canada gave tangible support to those
voices of faith yesterday by suspending its sittings for two hours.
Parliamentarians, members of the diplomatic corps and others filled to
overflowing the largest room on Parliament Hill to listen to prayers and
reflection from a variety of faith groups.
I thank Ambassador Cellucci for his attendance. I thank
the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Speaker's office for their generous support.
Canada is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation.
Yesterday parliament walked the walk instead of talking the talk. I have never
been more proud of my colleagues in the House and Senate.
* * *
(1105)
United States of
America
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last night George Bush gave what may be
the most important speech of our lifetime. He did not include Canada in his
list of countries that are friends. Meanwhile our Prime Minister's priorities
are clear. Last night he went to a Liberal fundraiser in Toronto while Tony
Blair was at the U.S. congress with his unequivocal support.
Ten days after the terrorist attacks our Prime Minister
has still not been to Washington or New York. Canadians are embarrassed by this
lack of leadership. It is setting a negative tone for trade and other relations
with our best friend and neighbour.
The government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no
need for critical action and no urgency. The drift and empty rhetoric go
on.
* * *
Terrorism
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Winnipeg
South Centre I too extend condolences to those who lost loved ones in the
recent tragedy in the United States. Such horrific acts of aggression and
malevolence defy comprehension.
It is human nature to immediately seek revenge by
inflicting damage on those who sought to damage us. However we must, as the
Prime Minister has said, proceed with balance.
This was not just an act of terrorism against the
United States. It was a tidal wave of terrorism against every citizen of the
world, and those responsible should be accountable to the world for their
actions.
Through bodies like the International Criminal Court
and international institutions and alliances, terrorists can be made to answer
for their crimes and the world can seek justice for the injustices committed
against innocents. Global co-operation and global solutions must be a
priority.
Over the coming months and years Canada must continue
to show leadership. We must act with wisdom, tolerance and patience as we
contend with the profound implications and effects of terrorism.
* * *
[Translation]
Violence Against Women
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, throughout Quebec, as well as Canada and
the rest of the world, thousands of women and men will be marching today to
mark the Day of Action Against Violence Against Women.
Any form of violence, whether against women, men or
children, and whether verbal, physical or psychological, must be condemned and
opposed with the utmost vigour.
According to the Regroupement québécois des centres
d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel, 85% of reported
violence is against women, and 34% of women aged 16 or over have experienced a
sexual assault at some time in their life.
I salute community organizations in my riding as well
as those everywhere else in the world, for their unflagging efforts which make
it possible for women to come together and to provide each other with
support.
Let us hold on to the dream that in the very near
future, such organizations will no longer be needed as hate and violence gives
way to peace and serenity.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the apocalyptic events which occurred last
week shocked the world as terrorists waged a premeditated attack on the United
States.
President Bush called the attack the first war of the
21st century but noted that it was not just an attack against Americans; it was
an attack on freedom and democracy everywhere.
Combating elusive terrorists is not nearly as
straightforward as fighting a conventional war. What is needed is a measured
and concentrated international response by a strike force comprising as many
nations as possible and standing up for a way of life and a set of shared
beliefs that define mankind.
Targeting refugee claimants and immigrants is not the
answer. Those who have attacked Muslim Canadians are as mindless as those who
danced with joy at the news of the misfortune of the United States.
I remind Canadians what the Prime Minister said on
Monday:
We will allow no one to force us to
sacrifice our values or traditions under the pressure of urgent
circumstances. |
* * *
(1110)
United States of
America
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks on the United States
last week should remind us all that anti-Americanism is far too prevalent in
this country.
Throughout the last century the United States was a
positive force for freedom and democracy in the world. Through mechanisms like
the Marshall plan, NATO and NORAD the United States has successfully
revitalized national economies and helped guarantee international
security.
Yet just last week, after being subject to an
unprovoked attack by vicious killers, our American allies were subjected to a
repugnant attack in a CBC townhall meeting where an audience brimming with
anti-American fanatics tried to suggest America was to blame for the tragedy
because of its policies.
This sort of doublethink must be challenged. The
cavalier assumptions of superiority must stop. Americans must know that the
vast majority of Canadians are behind our closest allies as we prepare for this
war against terrorism.
* * *
Walk of Hope
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a former president of the United Way,
it gives me great pleasure to inform the House that at noon today a Walk of
Hope will take place. We are walking in memory of the victims of the tragedy of
September 11. We will leave from the Centennial Flame and will cross the
Interprovincial and Portage bridges, covering a route of five
kilometres.
We ask that people wear red, white and blue and carry
Canadian and American flags. Please come and walk to show support and
solidarity with all those who have been affected by this terrible
tragedy.
I want to thank the United Way committee for organizing
and leading this demonstration. I want to thank the many volunteers who will
collect donations for the Canadian Red Cross Society relief effort and I
encourage people to donate generously.
Let us stand and walk together in this demonstration of
our common stand for peace, justice and humanity.
* * *
Terrorism
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last night we held a special debate to
provide counsel to the Prime Minister before Monday's meeting with President
Bush in the wake of last week's events. We stood together and tried to
articulate our horror. We conveyed our love to the shattered families,
condemned the evil and called to bring these criminals to justice.
In the midst of our debate George Bush made his address
to America and announced “You are either with us or with the terrorists.” He
forgot that there is another way and that is to stand shoulder to shoulder with
all communities desiring to bring these criminals to justice.
Let us seize the opportunity to build new international
courts and stronger international law. Let us expose the roots of violence and
not extend the terror with our own hands.
A survivor of the 1993 World Trade Center bomb blast
said:
If we fail to wage peace instead of
war, if we do not learn to value all life as fervently as we value our own,
then their deaths will mean nothing and terror and violence will remain our
dark companions. |
Let us choose life.
* * *
[Translation]
Terrorism
Mr. Odina Desrochers
(Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions this week we have
called upon the Prime Minister to consult parliament and to take advantage of
the opportunity to democratically adopt within the House the government's
participation in this fight against international terrorism.
Every time the Prime Minister has remained vague,
accepting consultation perhaps, but not allowing a vote in the House. His
attitude is in total contradiction to the objective he is pursuing as are we
all: to promote freedom and democracy.
Does the Prime Minister realize that he cannot claim to
promote these fundamental values when he is not attaching the necessary
importance to the institution that is the embodiment of those values and to the
elected representatives who sit there?
On behalf of democracy and freedom, we are calling upon
him to respond to our legitimate demands and to take advantage of the
consensual strength of this parliament in order to add weight to his
international undertakings.
* * *
[English]
Dystonia
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, October 14 to 21 is National Dystonia
Awareness Week and volunteers around the country will be active in their own
communities to help those suffering from this serious disorder.
Dystonia is a neurological disorder that affects nearly
10,000 Canadians. It is difficult to diagnose and can affect the whole body
causing abnormal movement and postures. Often those afflicted by dystonia can
go a long period of time without seeking medical assistance because they are
unaware of the disorder.
Fortunately there are organizations such as the
Dystonia Support Group that is working to promote a greater awareness of
dystonia and providing support to known sufferers within the
community.
I congratulate all the volunteers and extend my
appreciation and gratitude for their dedication and selfless giving.
* * *
(1115)
The Economy
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants,
PC):
Mr. Speaker, in June the finance minister said he would
introduce a fall budget if the economy worsened. Clearly the minister
recognizes that the economy has indeed worsened.
Since June, 27,000 Canadians have lost their jobs. We
have seen the worst quarter in terms of economic growth in six years.
Universally economists are speaking of a global recession. Additionally, in
light of recent events, we now need to ensure more military and security
resources to defend the security of our borders, the safety of our citizens and
ultimately to meet our commitment to our allies.
Cabinet is now proposing an economic stimulus package
that could run the country into deficit. Canadians deserve a full budget so
that their elected members of parliament can play a role in making the tough
economic decisions that lie ahead. Canadians want their priorities protected,
even if it means reducing frivolous and unnecessary Liberal spending. Canadians
do not want an unnecessary budget deficit.
We call on the finance minister to honour his June
commitment and to table a full budget this fall.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the attack on the United States last week
not only warned Americans of the destruction that terrorists can cause, but
Canadians have realized for the first time that no one is safe from terrorism,
including ourselves.
Given this very real danger, what do Canadians have the
right to expect of their government? First, they have the right to expect
strong anti-terrorism legislation that would ensure that Canada does not
harbour terrorists or terrorist groups. Such legislation would define terrorism
in a comprehensive manner, name and outlaw specific terrorist groups and would
ban fundraising and other support activities on behalf of terrorist
groups.
These changes would need to be combined with
legislative changes to existing laws, including amending our laws so that we
can extradite suspected terrorists.
In addition to legislative changes, Canadians also have
the right to expect more resources to be directed toward enforcement. Adequate
staffing is crucial at organizations such as CSIS, the RCMP and national
defence. The good men and women who work in these organizations must have the
tools they need to get the job done.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has repeatedly
denied that there was a Canadian connection to the terrible events of September
11. Yesterday however, the FBI apprehended Nabil Al-Marabh, a man who lived in
and was wanted in Canada. U.S. authorities handed him over to Canadian
immigration officials but they let him loose.
How can the government continue to deny a Canadian
connection?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that I was aware that an
individual who spent some time in Canada was arrested by U.S. authorities.
I think all members of the House need to remember this
is a worldwide manhunt, and the RCMP and CSIS are working with their
counterparts in the U.S. to make sure the people responsible are brought to
justice.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that Canada's
immigration and refugee board freed this man and let him out on bail, even
after the adjudicator said that he might not show up for bail. That is tough
for us to understand. That is exactly what happened. In the interim, the FBI
believes that this man may have had a hand in last week's tragic
events.
How does releasing a failed refugee claimant with this
kind of history keep us safe from terrorism in Canada? I would like to know
that.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
First, Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in his facts.
Second, it is very important that we not compromise any investigations, nor
should we participate in trial by innuendo.
In Canada we believe in the rule of law. We know that
terrorist activities are international in their scope. There have been arrests
in France and the United States. If and when we have evidence in Canada, we
move to detain. If we have evidence, the RCMP moves to arrest.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the evidence was very plain. This man was
apprehended with a false Canadian passport and false documents. He was turned
over to Canadian authorities by the U.S. What did they do with him? They let
him out on bail and in the interim he may have been involved.
Once again, and this is in the broad context now, not
about this specific individual, how does releasing an individual like this help
us in the war against terrorism? How?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we can and do
detain individuals who are security threats when we have that evidence. He
should also know that we do not detain individuals on whispers or innuendo. We
need to have that evidence. When we do, we take action and we take it
immediately.
I would say to the member that in democratic countries
like Canada we are governed by the rule of law.
(1120)
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the events of last week, including the
arrest in the U.S. of Mr. Al-Marabh, have underscored the pressing need for
anti-terrorism legislation in the country.
Yesterday the 15 member countries of the European Union
came together and adopted tough new measures that would give their police and
security forces the tools they need to arrest and extradite suspected
terrorists. The European Union acted quickly to ensure that it had the tools
needed to fight the war against terrorism.
When will the government do the same thing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said a number of
times and I have said in the House, the changes that need to be made will be
made to make sure that this country remains one of the safest countries in the
world to live. We will make sure of that.
Mr. John Reynolds (West
Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, they say they will make sure but their
members are walking out of committees, so we cannot have votes to bring people
to committee to explain to them what is happening.
The member countries of the European Union know
something about fighting terrorism. Far too many of them have faced this
challenge for years and the safety and security of their citizens is a daily
concern. That is why they moved quickly to adopt anti-terrorism legislation.
Last week the Prime Minister said he would follow the
example of the European Union when it came to mourning the dead. Why can this
government not now follow the example of the European Union in honouring those
who have fallen by moving swiftly to enact antii-terrorism legislation in this
country?
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have an extensive list of criminal
legislation in the country to deal with acts of terrorists, including all the
major offences under the criminal code.
The Minister of Justice mentioned that we will be
moving quickly to bring in legislation that will allow us to implement the two
remaining of 12 anti-terrorist conventions which Canada has already signed on
to. We have money laundering legislation which is being extended through Bill
C-24, which will have a much broader scope to take control of the proceeds of
crime and the proceeds that may go to--
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Laurier--Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in his address to the nation yesterday
President Bush called on each country to join the United States in defending
freedom. This is central to our concerns about the establishment of a broad
coalition to fight terrorism.
President Bush also said, and I quote “Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists”.
In terms of creating a vast international coalition,
will the Liberals agree that choosing the American camp, the camp of freedom,
does not mean giving them carte blanche?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have made it abundantly clear, and let
me repeat what the Prime Minister and what so many others have said in this
government. We stand with the United States in this campaign against
international terrorism. The safety and security of our people, the people of
the United States and indeed freedom loving people right around the world,
depends on this coalition coming together.
No one has said that anyone would get carte blanche. We
have said that we want to work together to suppress terrorism.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, that is what I wanted to hear.
In his speech yesterday, President Bush did not however
refer to the role of international institutions such as the UN in the
developing fight against terrorism.
Will the Prime Minister use his visit to Washington to
remind President Bush that the UN must play an important role in the
international fight against terrorism?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations and the United Nations
Security Council have already been engaged in this. Of course the right of a
country to defend itself is set out quite clearly in article 51 of the UN
charter.
We have had our neighbour under attack. This act of
terrorism is a threat to them, to us and everyone. We intend to act with our
United States partners in this matter, as well as the UN and the UN Security
Council. NATO will also be a key part of all that.
(1125)
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a growing number of voices can be heard
calling for the establishment of a broad coalition to fight terrorism
effectively.
Yesterday President Bush called for the leaders of the
al-Qaeda to be handed over to American authorities only.
If everyone acknowledges the relevance of such a
coalition to fight terrorism, will the government acknowledge that
international justice must also intervene as quickly to judge the perpetrators
of the crimes committed last week?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been a strong supporter of
international justice and a supporter of the international court system, which
is still waiting for sufficient ratification to be put into effect. It has also
done so with respect to the former Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda. We have had a
very strong track record of supporting these international justice
systems.
What is needed is for these people to be brought to
justice as quickly as possible. The president of the United States has
indicated that that needs to be done now.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to prevent the security
council from acting quickly to create an ad hoc international criminal
tribunal.
We must not forget that the call for an international
coalition means for many countries and for all sorts of reasons, that justice
must be of an international nature as was the case in the former Yugoslavia
with Milosevic who had struck in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia.
Is the government prepared now to support the creation
of a special international criminal tribunal?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the court system in the United
States, as in Canada and many other democracies that operate on the rule of
law, can quite well handle this kind of case.
There is a strong body of evidence in the United States
with respect to this terrorist attack. That is the country it took place in. I
have confidence that in the absence of an international court system which does
not exist at this point in time, that the justice system is quite adequate to
deal with the matter.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, much has been made about President Bush's
failure to mention Canada in his speech last night. However that is not what
Canadians care about. What they care about is that President Bush and the world
hear Canada's view that the first line of attack on terrorism must be a truly
international one, that we work through the United Nations and that we do it on
the basis of the rule of law.
Will the Prime Minister deliver that message loud and
clear when he goes to Washington on Monday?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, Canada respects and abides
by the rule of law. If there is any discussion of that matter with the
president on Monday, I am sure both the president and the Prime Minister will
find considerable agreement on that.
What will hopefully come out of the discussion on
Monday is a way ahead in terms of our two countries moving together. Canada has
made it clear that it is committed to working with the U.S. in this campaign
against terrorism. We are willing to put up our assets and provide assistance
in whatever way we possibly can. That is certainly the message that the Prime
Minister will be delivering to the president on Monday.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the U.S. and Canada and all
other countries to work together through the United Nations. In the 1960s the
world faced a terrifying threat with the Cuban missile crisis. What did the
president of the day, John F. Kennedy, do? He invoked the UN charter. He called
upon the UN to call an emergency meeting of the security council and to deploy
UN personnel.
Will the Prime Minister go to Washington and urge
President Bush to embrace the John F. Kennedy approach?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, every circumstance of every conflict is
different. What is important is that we bring together a coalition of countries
from around the world to fight terrorism. It is important that the countries
which harbour terrorists cease to do that. It is important that they rid their
countries of the terrorist cells that exist.
The UN has a major role to play in all this. The UN has
already played a major role in indicating that the United States has a right to
defend itself under article 51. The UN Security Council will continue to be
engaged in this matter on behalf of all UN countries.
(1130)
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last night during President Bush's address
to the nation, Canadians could not help but get the impression that our
American friends must be underwhelmed with Canadian government
reaction.
While President Bush and other world leaders have
outlined specific proposals, like strengthening intelligence gathering
agencies, proactively building the international coalition and enacting strong,
anti-terrorist measures, Canada has said the comforting words but has failed to
produce a real action plan.
When can we expect the Prime Minister to address our
nation to tell Canadians what part Canada is prepared to play in the war
against terrorism?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on September 11 the first request to any
foreign country from the United States came to Canada. We were asked if we
would take 200 planes out of its skies and take them into our airports and deal
with 33,000 people in those aircraft. We said yes to that. President Bush, in
one of his first public statements, thanked Canada. How many times does the
hon. member think he needs to thank Canada? He knows we are there with
them.
The Americans further asked us to put CF-18s into the
NORAD system. We have done that. They asked us to increase intelligence
analysis. We have done it. We have done all that we have been asked.
Mr. Peter MacKay
(Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, following President Bush's address last
night, it is obvious that Canada will be involved in a prolonged campaign
against terrorism. Years of Liberal cuts to CSIS, Canada Customs, immigration
and our military may have produced a surplus but there are questions regarding
our internal security and our military capability.
Canadians demand leadership at this time. We know
cabinet finally met on Tuesday yet no plan has emerged. Are additional
resources being allotted to protect our country and meet our obligations so
that we can truly stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies?
Would the solicitor general tell us what the plan
is?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague heard the
Prime Minister when he said that we would be with the United States every step
of the way. Every measure that needs to be taken will be taken.
What we must do is review and decide where funds need
to be allocated. The Minister of Finance indicated quite clearly that financing
would be available. The director of CSIS has indicated that he has the money to
fulfill his mandate. We put $1.5 billion in the public safety envelope. We put
$584 million toward the RCMP over the next three years. We will do more to make
sure this great nation remains the safest place in the world.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, like many who watched it, I was cheered to
see President Bush last night praising the United Kingdom and its prime
minister, Tony Blair, for pledging to fight with the United States.
Indeed, even the president of France, Jacques Chirac,
was quoted yesterday as saying that France will be there with the U.S.
too.
Will the government work with our friends and allies to
build a military force to destroy the military capability of any terrorist of
any country that supports international terrorism?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the prime minister of the U.K. was in the
room at the time. It is logical that he would have been pointed out by the
president. Again, the president talked about a number of countries that he
wants to come on side and be part of building the coalition.
As I indicated previously, Canada has already been
thanked by Mr. Bush and, most important, we have made it abundantly clear that
we do stand with him and that we are committed to this campaign. We have
provided all the requests and the assets for which the Americans have asked. We
have told them that we stand ready to be with them in this entire campaign,
militarily or in other ways.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. ambassador and President Bush
have made it clear that the U.S. is looking for military support. Canadians
want Canada to commit to the fight against terrorism. The government must
answer the call.
When will the Government of Canada join with our
allies, the United Kingdom and France, to show a real military commitment in
the coming fight? Where is the government's action plan? What exactly will the
government deliver to the fight against terrorism?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we continually get a Rambo style of
commentary coming from the Alliance.
There is more than just a military involvement. The
president of the United States and others have made it clear that this is a
multidimensional campaign against terrorism.
In terms of the military aspect of it, we have made it
clear to the United States. It knows what our assets are. We have said that we
will consider the use of any of those assets in terms of any military
campaign.
The Alliance seems to want to get off to war awfully
fast. What we want to do is try to settle the campaign against terrorism with
the least loss of life to our troops or to any civilians.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's newspapers the
Prime Minister may present a certain number of military scenarios to President
Bush during their meeting on Monday.
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the
government has planned different military scenarios, some of which involve
deploying thousands of Canadian soldiers abroad?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, the
United States is still in a planning phase, determining what the full nature of
the campaign will be. It will consult with us and with other allies. It knows
our assets and the capability of our personnel. It knows what we are capable of
doing. It saw what we did in Kosovo and what we have done in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
We have told the Americans that our assets and our
personnel are there and available. This is more than just a military effort. It
is a diplomatic and economic effort and an effort in many other respects to try
to deal with the campaign against terrorism.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that we too know what our assets
are. We know what we have and the Americans know it. That is not what we want
to know.
We are asking if military scenarios have been planned
involving the deployment of thousands of Canadians abroad. This is quite
specific. This is what we would like to know.
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times before, of
course there are options that are being prepared in that regard. No decision
has been made on any specific element of the Canadian Forces. Indeed, the
United States has not made a decision on what is totally needed and what it
would request of Canada or other countries.
Certainly we are working out a wide range of options
that could be used in terms of support.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I asked the
Minister of Transport whether he could confirm a Sun media report that
knives and box cutters were found aboard a Toronto-New York carrier flight the
same day terrorists hijacked four planes with the same weapons and crashed
three of them into buildings in the United States.
The minister told me to check my facts and that is
exactly what I am trying to do. I am seeking the information directly from the
person who should know whether or not this happened.
I ask the question again. Could the minister confirm
that those weapons were found on planes that left the Canadian
airport?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, before September 11 security was rigorous
both at airports and onboard planes. Certainly after that time things have been
tightened up considerably.
We do not talk about specific planes or specific
incidences of security for obvious reasons. However, I wish to say that the
hon. member does not have his facts correct.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since the minister is not giving any facts
it is awfully hard for Canadians to piece the puzzle together.
This week we have seen very little action from the
Minister of Transport to improve air security. He asked airlines to lock the
cockpit doors but most of them were already doing that. He was asked to provide
air marshals by Air Canada and he refused, even though he is considering a $3
billion to $4 billion bailout of Air Canada.
We have seen that bombs and weapons can be smuggled
through airport security. The minister has known for months of these security
risks and has done nothing.
What kind of attack will it take to force the minister
to take the kind of action that is necessary to make sure that our planes are
safe in the skies?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
I do not know where the hon. member has been for the
last week, Mr. Speaker. He must have travelled from his constituency. The fact
is that we have put in place extremely tight security measures. I have said
that we do not preclude bringing in further measures.
I met yesterday with members of the Air Transport
Association who have been working with us. This is a group that represents the
airline industry and we are working, not just on a daily basis but on an hourly
basis, to evaluate security and to ensure that whatever measures need to be
taken are put in place.
* * *
[Translation]
Budget Surpluses
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, for the first four months of this year the
federal government has accumulated surpluses in excess of $10 billion.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance told us that because of the anti-terrorism
effort and security measures, these surpluses could disappear and our way of
life could change.
Does the government agree with the disturbing comments
of the Minister of Finance, which, to make matters worse, contradict those of
the Prime Minister who said this week that there was no question of the
terrorists dictating how we lived our lives?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we have all seen there is considerable
economic uncertainty globally. That having been said however we know that there
will be costs associated with the fight against terrorism. I must reiterate
that, as he said the other day, the minister is going to be providing Canadians
with a comprehensive statement of our fiscal situation in the fall.
(1140)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the situation is cause for concern, but
there is no need to make matters worse. That is what the Minister of Finance
did yesterday.
There can have been only two reasons why he said what
he did: either he is telling us whatever comes into his head about the
surpluses as he has done for the past five years, or the minister of defence
has asked him for billions of dollars to take part in the war effort and to
finance his scenarios.
Will the minister of defence inform the House about the
nature of these extraordinary demands for billions of dollars?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the minister said yesterday, our
priority is to protect Canada, which involves two things: national security and
our economic security. I can assure the member that nobody in the world will
fight harder than we will against a deficit.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally meets President
Bush next week to tell him what Canada can contribute to the war against
terrorism. However he has an equally important measure to deliver regarding
Canada's border integrity.
What message is the Prime Minister bringing to
President Bush to ease his fears and protect the Canadian economy?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with regard to our shared border, all
members of the House know that Canada and the U.S. have been working together
to ensure that our businesses keep working. We know as well that part of the
mandate of Canada Customs is the question of the protection of Canadian
society. We have been working with the United States. Back in 1995 we signed an
agreement on our shared border. We must continue to co-operate with the United
States.
Bill S-23 is before the House. The principles we have
in the bill must be enacted as soon as possible. I am counting on the support
of the opposition parties to make sure we move ahead with the bill.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the words of the U.S. administration
should be setting off alarm bells at the PMO. Colin Powell criticized our
border integrity. President Bush has stated that the most important
relationship the U.S. has is with Mexico. Last night he stated that the U.S.
has no truer friend than Great Britain. Canada once enjoyed these
designations.
With billions of dollars in trade and thousands of
Canadian jobs contingent upon our trading relationship with the U.S., what
measures has the Prime Minister actually taken to strengthen Canada's borders
and fortify our trade links?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, following the tragic
events of last week Canada Customs officers have been fantastic and deserve a
good round of applause.
When we began reforming the system a year and a half
ago the opposition of course was not there because it was not interested in
Canadian security, safety or in the customs system. However this government was
very interested and that is why we began the process a year and a half ago.
Bill S-23 is before the House. This is what we need in
order to make sure that we have and keep a safe country, and I count on the
opposition's support.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
for International Financial Institutions.
Canadians as we know, are very concerned about
terrorism and how it is financed. Given that money is the fuel and food for
terrorism, will the government be introducing amendments to our recently
enacted anti-money laundering legislation to combat terrorism?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very
important question.
We are considering that at this very moment. We have
had discussions with Fintrac on our money laundering legislation and we
certainly are looking at that measure. It is also important to tell Canadians
what else we are doing currently. Pursuant to UN Security Council resolution
1333, on February 22 Canada passed regulations to “freeze without delay funds
and other financial assets of Osama bin Laden and individuals and entities
associated with him, including those of al-Qaeda”.
(1145)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
National Defence.
While Canadians strongly condemn the terrorist attacks
on September 11, many Canadians are also deeply concerned and reject George
Bush's dangerous new war that ignores the United Nations and international
law.
Will the Prime Minister tell George Bush on Monday that
there are not only two choices, the choice between the United States and
terrorism, but that there is a third choice, the choice of respect for
international law and the United Nations? Will the Prime Minister make it clear
that we reject George Bush's war?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this country respects international law.
The Prime Minister has made that very clear. We are a country that is a
democracy, that respects the rule of law. I am sure President Bush knows that.
What needs to be done though within that framework, within the rule of law and
within the framework of the United Nations is to deal with terrorism
effectively. It is a threat to the United States. It is a threat to us. It is a
threat throughout the world.
The two men will get together on Monday and discuss how
we can work together to effectively do that.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, George Bush's new war is in fact in
contempt of international law and will result in the deaths of thousands of
innocent Afghani civilians, just as we have seen over half a million Iraqi
children die innocently.
George Bush has said that he will use all necessary
weapons in this war. Will the Prime Minister make it very clear to President
George Bush that Canada utterly rejects any suggestion of the use of tactical
nuclear weapons in any war at all?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member is going way out on a limb. He
is getting very extreme and is fearmongering on this particular
issue.
What has been made clear by the president of the United
States, by the Prime Minister and all of us is that this is a campaign against
terrorism. It is not just going to be fought on the basis of military means. It
is not going to be fought with conventional warfare means by and large. There
are many different ways we must come together in this fight against terrorism.
That is what we are going to talk about doing.
Let me also remind the hon. member that the United
Nations, in particular the UN Security Council, has said under article 51 that
the United States does have a right to defend itself. It has been
attacked.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, intelligence reports from CSIS, Jane's
and the U.S. congress all cite Canada as a country where terrorist cells
are operating, yet the solicitor general continues to evade questions regarding
their existence.
How many times do we have to ask this question before
we get an answer? We have been asking it all week. Why will the minister not
come clean with Canadians and tell us whether there are terrorist cells in
Canada and whether he has secured new additional funds to adequately deal with
them?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this question a number of
times.
The Prime Minister and I have said a number of times
that all measures will be reviewed. If measures need to be put in place, they
will be put in place. The director of CSIS has indicated quite clearly he has
the financing to fulfill his mandate. The RCMP had a major infusion of dollars.
The Minister of Finance has indicated quite clearly that we are going to do
what is right for the long term to fight terrorism and make sure the country
remains one of the safest countries in the world in which to live.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today the transport
minister was asked about box cutters found on a flight out of Pearson airport.
His only response was to admonish the member for asking such a
question.
After question period yesterday I spoke to an Air
Canada employee who was outraged at the minister's flippant
response.
It was confirmed that the box cutters were indeed found
on an aborted Air Canada flight destined for New York on September 11. How is
it that the American government can be open and honest with its citizens while
this government hides behind a cloak of denial?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member criticizes my answer to
the hon. member from the Alliance who posed the question initially. All I said
was that he had his facts wrong.
(1150)
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Nabil Al-Marabh, who had been connected
with two of the World Trade Center hijackers, was under arrest in Canada but
the IRB released him.
The minister said that we cannot detain or deport
persons on the basis of what she calls rumour and innuendo. The evidence
against Mr. Al-Marabh was that he had been arrested on stabbing charges in
Boston, that he had attempted to illegally enter the United States, that he had
illegally re-entered Canada, that he was carrying a forged passport, that he
was carrying a forged citizenship card and that he was carrying a forged social
insurance card.
Why was this real evidence and not rumour or innuendo,
not enough to detain or deport this suspected terrorist?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that the campaign
against terrorism is an international struggle. Canadians demand responsible
actions. I will not in any way compromise any investigation nor will I
participate in trial by innuendo. In Canada we have the rule of law. We rely on
the rule of law when making decisions which are appropriate at the
time.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what the minister refers to
as rumour and innuendo. This individual had been deported from Canada, had
re-entered the country illegally, had been arrested carrying a false Canadian
passport, citizenship card and SIN card and had been charged by U.S.
authorities for a stabbing in Boston.
The IRB adjudicator in the case admitted that he was
not someone who could be trusted to simply appear at a future hearing but
released him anyway. Why will the government not agree to detain or deport
immediately any failed refugee claimant with links to terrorism who break
Canadian laws?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to equate all failed refugee
claimants with terrorism. That is clearly wrong. It is also important for the
hon. member and all people to know that when we have evidence that someone
poses a security threat, we take action immediately. The person is detained and
we then argue for continued detention.
Similarly, we do not detain people on mere whispers.
Neither do we detain on suspicion. When we have the facts and the evidence and
hard information, we take the action Canadians expect us to take.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a while ago the minister of defence
informed the House that the government had drawn up a number of different
military scenarios.
I believe it is absolutely normal for a certain number
of military scenarios for a response to terrorism to be contemplated within a
broad coalition. In fact, if they were not it would be a cause for
concern.
I would however like to find out from the minister of
defence whether any figures have been attached to these military scenarios. Has
the cost of these actions been assessed, which would be evidence of
responsibility?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I indicated in answer to a previous
question that the military were working on options. The government has not set
out scenarios at this point in time. It is working on options and yes, costing
will also be a part of those options.
At the same time, the United States knows what we are
capable of doing. The Americans know what capacity we have. They are designing
the program and will ask us in terms of what they think the needs are. They are
the ones quite logically who are co-ordinating this entire effort, but nothing
has been finalized. It is still in process.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am not inquiring as to whether a final
decision has been reached. I trust that the minister is working with the
military and that the military is not the only one involved in these scenarios.
There is a political aspect. There is a certain control that has to be
exercised in this regard.
What I am asking, therefore, is not to wait until the
United States tells us what we can do. Instead, the Prime Minister needs to be
able to tell them what we could do.
In any logical, realistic and responsible assessment,
costs are evaluated in order to determine capabilities and possibilities. Has
there been a cost assessment of these operations?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are no costs I can talk about at
this point in time. Yes, all of these matters are being assessed. There is
regular day to day, ongoing communications with the United States which is
preparing the plan.
We told the Americans of our capabilities. We are
looking at how we can reshape some of those capabilities in view of the
circumstances post-September 11. We are in frequent communication with them.
They know that. They know that we want to be of help.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the terrorist attack
on the United States ordinary Canadians are expressing concern over their
personal safety.
While Canadians appreciate the need to exercise
discretion when discussing plans for security, our citizens need to know that
the military bases and our nuclear power facilities are secure.
People want to help. What plans does the government
have to involve the public in this fight against international
terrorism?
(1155)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I cannot understand is why opposition
members continually ask government members sensitive information on security
issues.
They want information on investigations. They want
information on security measures. I can assure my hon. colleague that all the
measures that need to be taken will be taken by the government.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant
(Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, involving the people of Canada in the
security of our nation does not mean divulging state secrets.
Even though the Prime Minister has fallen short during
this crisis, the people of Canada have not.
When will the minister table a plan in the House to
respond to the concerns of all Canadians whom we all want to help?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we said many times what we are going to
do. We are going to walk every step with the United States on this issue. We
are going to take what measures need to be taken to increase security in this
country.
The Minister of Finance has indicated quite clearly
that financing will be made available for extra security measures. The Minister
of Transport has indicated extra measures are being considered. All appropriate
measures are being taken by the government to make sure this country remains
one of the safest countries in the world in which to live.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Extreme weather was evident during the 2001 growing
season worldwide. Drought in particular is having a serious impact on Canadian
farmers.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the
House what the extent of the drought is and whether the government has programs
in place to help farmers through this crisis?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that many farmers in
Canada are going through one of the most severe droughts in decades.
We are monitoring that. However I remind everyone that
we have a range of programs and safety nets. More farmers purchased crop
insurance coverage for more acres. There is a total coverage of over $6.5
billion. We estimate that after farmers' 30% of the premium, crop insurance
alone will pay out over $1 billion.
There is the net income stabilization account. There is
the Canada farm income program. We estimate at this stage that between the
federal and provincial governments there will be close to $4 billion
in--
The Speaker:
The hon. member for Elk Island.
* * *
Standing Committee on
Finance
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told us on Monday that
committees would be informed and involved in finding solutions to the present
threat by terrorists.
We gave notice and had motions prepared to call the
Minister of National Revenue and the commissioner of Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency to the finance committee. However instead of receiving, debating and
voting on our motions, the government pulled all Liberal members away so that
quorum was lost.
Why does the government not want these officials at
committee?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have indicated our full co-operation
insofar as committee structures are concerned. The hon. member will know that.
I do not know when the incident he referred to
specifically occurred. I know yesterday we adjourned committees. We even
suspended the House in order to attend a ceremony that members organized.
Perhaps that is when the event occurred. If it occurred otherwise, I will
endeavour to work with him and indeed all members.
Finally, we even asked for a vote in the House to refer
a particular issue to committee earlier this week and unanimous consent was
denied.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this was not a case of members not knowing
where the committee room was. They were already there. This was a case where
well before the time of the gathering in room 200, west block, committee
members walked out. It was quite clear that it was at the call of the whip or
some other official from the government.
My question is very simple. The Liberals defeated our
supply day motion to produce anti-terrorist legislation. Now they will not let
us work through committees. How and when will Canadians ever get some answers
to this serious issue?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the hon. member and
indeed all hon. members that I would work in co-operation with them to do
everything we could to make the committee work available.
We are in the process. I even had an informal
consultation with the hon. member's House leader about the restarting of
committees, because under the standing orders they do expire 10 days after the
House comes back in September.
To the extent that we can co-operate, get them fully
going and studying all issues relating not only to this but anything else, the
hon. member will get my full co-operation.
* * *
(1200)
[Translation]
Stock Market
Speculation
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur
(Berthier--Montcalm, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, a number of countries are currently
looking into the movement of capital and dubious stock market speculation
orders made shortly before the September 11 strikes. Terrorists might have
speculated knowing the events that would occur.
Could the solicitor general tell us whether such an
investigation was undertaken in Canada as well and specifically at the Toronto
stock exchange?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yes, we had discussions with the stock
exchanges on this.
We also had discussions with the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Discussions are now taking place
between it and our financial institutions in order to obtain their full
co-operation in working with the authorities of our two countries to combat
terrorism.
* * *
[English]
International Aid
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are still hundreds of thousands of
human beings on the verge of starvation all over the world. Recently the
Minister for International Cooperation consulted with over 1,000 groups and
individuals across Canada on how we could make our foreign aid more
effective.
Could she report to the House on how at the G-8
conference this year she will be able to present a more effective plan to help
these people?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have held consultations in 10 Canadian
cities and met with 1,100 organizations and individuals across Canada.
Some of the issues we discussed that will help us to
prepare our position for the G-8 are strategic co-ordinated local ownership,
which is very important to many NGOs and countries, and stronger democratic
sustainable governance, another issue which was discussed and is very
important.
There is also the importance of education in developing
countries to assist them to lift themselves out of poverty, especially
education for women and girls, and of market access and economic development.
These were some of the very major issues discussed which will help us
tremendously.
* * *
Privilege
Statements by
Members
[Privilege]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In a
statement prior to question period today the member for Vancouver Island North
said, among other things, that last night the Prime Minister was at a Liberal
fundraiser in Toronto. This is totally false.
I know the hon. member would not want to mislead the
House and give false information. I would ask that he withdraw that
comment.
The Speaker:
Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Island North
would like to say something in response. I am not sure this is a question of
privilege, but we will hear from the hon. member for Vancouver Island
North.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that if that is
the case I obviously withdraw it. I think the important point is we know where
he was not and where he was is another question.
* * *
Points of Order
Human Rights
[Points of Order]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After
consultation among all parties and with the full support of all party leaders I
ask that you seek consent of the House to move and adopt without debate the
following motion. I move:
|
(a) Issue an urgent and immediate plea to political, community and faith
leaders to speak out against violence, intolerance, or hatred of any kind,
directed at Muslims, Arabs and other visible minorities: and |
|
(b) In the name of the Canadian people, reassert our country's
fundamental adherence to the rule of law, and to preserving and protecting our
human rights as outlined in our charter. |
(1205)
The Speaker:
Does the hon. member for Halifax have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed
to)
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Government Response to
Petitions
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to
11 petitions.
* * *
Interparliamentary
Delegations
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga
Centre, Lib.):
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I have two
reports. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canadian-NATO
Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the meeting of the
subcommittee on the future security and defence capabilities of the NATO
parliamentary assembly held in Belgium and the Netherlands from May 6 to May
11, 2001.
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) as well, I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the fifth report of
the Canadian-NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the
spring session of the NATO parliamentary assembly held in Vilnius, Lithuania,
from May 27 to May 31, 2001.
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, Question No. 58 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 58--
Mr. Randy
White:
With respect to the net impact on Canada's medical
system and social programs of the family reunification class of immigration
over the latest year period for which data is available, has the net impact
been increasing or decreasing, and has the family reunification class been a
net contributor to, or a net beneficiary of, Canada's medical system and social
programs over that same period?
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Human Resources
Development Canada, since provincial governments administer social programs, it
is difficult to ascertain, with any degree of certainty, the impact of the
family reunification class of immigration.
Among immigrant families that have been in Canada for
10 to 15 years, the incidence of poverty, defined as the percentage falling
below the low income cut off, is comparable to that for Canadian-born families:
13% for immigrant families v. 14% for Canadian-born families in
1997.
However, immigrants tend to have a higher level of
education and skills than other Canadians. In 1999, 57% of working-age
immigrants at landing had a post-secondary degree, compared to about 42% of the
Canadian working age population. Moreover, research shows that once immigrants
adapt to Canada and the demands of the labour market, the average income of
immigrant families exceeds that of Canadian families.
There are a number of reasons why immigrants may
experience problems integrating successfully into the labour market. For
example, individuals trained in a foreign country often encounter obstacles
having their education, experience, skills, training and credentials assessed
or recognised in Canada. This is why the January 2001 Speech from the Throne
outlined the need to attract skilled workers to Canada, and the government's
intent to work in co-operation with the provinces and territories to secure
better recognition of the foreign credentials of immigrants and to ease their
integration into Canadian society.
It is important to note, however, that the share of
immigrants in the family class has actually been declining. Immigrants are
divided into three main groups: economic class, family class and refugees.
Between 1980 and 1999, the share of immigrants coming to Canada in the family
class fell from 34% to 29%, while the share of immigrants in the economic class
rose from 32% to 56%. Accounting for more than one-half of all immigrants in
1999, the economic class is much less likely to need to use social programs,
relative to the family class or refugees.
Human Resources Development Canada is unable to provide
an assessment of the net impact over the last 10 years of the family
reunification class of immigration on Canada's old age security, OAS, program
and the Canada pension plan, CPP, as statistics are not collected on immigrants
who come to Canada to join family members already established in
Canada.
However, newcomers to Canada must earn the right to
benefits just like any other Canadian. Social security agreements with other
countries can help people to qualify for OAS and CPP benefits.
Eligibility for the OAS pension is based on age and
residence in Canada. Newcomers to Canada have never been eligible for full OAS
benefits immediately upon arrival. Most individuals must live in Canada at
least 10 years after age 18 in order to get a partial OAS pension. However,
people who move from one country to another to live or work can qualify in less
than 10 years for Canadian pension benefits through the application of
international social security agreements. These agreements co-ordinate the
operation of the OAS program with comparable programs in other countries, and
enable individuals to maintain continuity in their social security coverage.
Through these agreements, an individual may qualify for a partial OAS pension
by adding together periods of residence in Canada and periods of residence
and/or coverage, credits, under the programs(s) of another country to meet the
minimum residence requirement.
In March 1996 the rules applicable to some immigrants
from countries with social security agreements with Canada were modified in two
ways. First, sponsored immigrants from a country with which Canada has an
international agreement are not eligible for the guaranteed income supplement
or allowance benefits during their sponsorship period, up to a maximum of 10
years, except in specific circumstances. The supplement and the allowance are
income tested benefits provided to people who are largely dependent on the OAS
pension. This change recognizes the responsibility of sponsors to support
immigrants during that time. Second, non-sponsored immigrants from these same
countries can earn the supplement or allowance benefit at a rate of 1/10 for
each year of residence in Canada after age 18.
Eligibility for CPP benefits is based on participation
in the Canadian workforce. The CPP is designed to replace a portion of the
earnings from employment or self-employment that are no longer available to
contributors and their families due to retirement, disability, or death. To
qualify for a CPP retirement pension, a person has to have made at least one
valid contribution to the CPP. However, the pension would be very small. A
newcomer to Canada would have to contribute for several years to qualify for a
CPP disability benefit. A person has to have made contributions for at least
four years in the last six years. Survivors benefits are based on the
contributions of the deceased. Social security agreements can help people who
come from countries with social programs comparable to the CPP to qualify for
disability and survivors benefits. Each country pays in proportion to the
number of years or credits built up in the respective plans.
With respect to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, no
data is available as to the net impact of family reunification on Canada's
medical system and social programs. Although it is difficult to quantify their
contribution to Canada, family class immigrants do contribute to Canada's
economy. Parents and grandparents may serve as caregivers to working parents,
and other family class members may assist in family operated businesses which
creates employment for all Canadians.
Countries are made up of individual families and this
reality is enshrined in the Immigration Act, which has as one its objectives to
facilitate the reunion in Canada of Canadian citizens and permanent residents
with their close relatives from abroad.
With respect to Health Canada, it does not maintain
such information.
* * *
Questions Passed as Orders for
Returns
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, if Questions Nos. 44, 50, 55, 57 and 61
could be made orders for returns, the returns would be tabled
immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 44--
Ms. Christiane
Gagnon:
What advertising, promotional and information campaigns
(exhaustive list) have been broadcast on television and radio since January 1,
2001, by each federal department and agency, and how much has each of these
campaigns cost?
Return tabled.
Question No. 50--
Mr. Leon
Benoit:
What amounts were paid by government departments and
agencies to the McMillan Binch law firm for professional services during each
fiscal year since 1991?
Return tabled.
Question No. 55--
Ms. Jocelyne
Girard-Bujold:
For the fiscal year 1999-2000, can the government
provide a detailed list of all grants awarded by the Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in Quebec's 75 federal ridings?
Return tabled.
Questions No. 57--
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Has the government formulated a national housing policy
and, if so, what definitions has it given the following terms in regard to
single persons: (a) “affordable housing”; (b) “poverty”;
(c) “rooming house”; and (d) “homeless”?
Return tabled.
Questions No. 61--
Mr. John
Cummins:
With regard to the fishing industry and infrastructure
necessary to support it on a riding basis for the fiscal years 1997-98 to
2000-01 inclusive: (a) what was the funding for fishing harbours under
the Small Craft Harbours Program; and (b) what was the value of fish
landings?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Joe Jordan: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[Translation]
Customs Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that
Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and
to make related amendments to other acts, be now read the second
time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier
(Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, BQ):
Madam Speaker, as I was saying before being interrupted
for oral question period, we had certain reservations about the bill. These
were threefold.
First of all, regulations are needed for certain
matters that strike us as crucial, including the criteria for accreditation of
Canadian or American individuals or companies, so that when CANPASS
accreditation is refused, the reasons for that refusal are known and corrective
action is taken in order to maintain healthy competition between Canadian and
American companies in the same sector.
Second, we also have certain reservations about the
minister's discretionary power in certain cases. It is a failing of the
government that it always includes several provisions in a bill referring to
the minister's discretion. At some point everything is up to the minister's
discretion and this concerns us.
As for giving customs officers increased authority to
open mail in the case of envelopes weighing 30 grams or more, we question the
appropriateness of such a measure. Customs officers already have certain
powers, but it would be excessive to open mail without an arrest warrant or
serious doubts about the nature of a parcel. Even the Canadian Bar Association
questions these stepped up measures.
Following discussions with the Minister of National
Revenue, who is responsible for the economic development agency, it wanted us
to have some assurances regarding the possibility of having regulations with
the bill, especially when it is examined in committee or at least of our having
a statement of principle or a political statement for certain parts of the
bill. It will be especially important to have a larger picture than that of the
bill in which we find incredible gaps that prevent our understanding things
properly.
We got this assurance and I think we will watch how
things develop because the Minister of National Revenue and minister
responsible for economic development is not in the habit of saying just
anything. We will therefore await further developments in the hope that the
minister will provide the clarification we seek.
In principle, at this second reading stage my party is
going to support this bill, but we will be waiting for developments from the
minister responsible who, let us hope, will meet our expectations. If at the
end of the process we are not satisfied with respect to the concerns we have
mentioned throughout this speech, we would have to oppose the bill unless there
are amendments.
So far, we are in support of the bill's principles at
second reading because international trade could benefit. The administrative
problems encountered by certain companies and individuals in conducting
business with the United States in particular, could be reduced. This could be
a positive thing in the circumstances.
(1210)
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, the NDP caucus feels that Bill S-23 is
less about providing for the expedited movement of persons and goods into
Canada, or even about making technical or housekeeping changes to the current
practices, and more about economic sovereignty. It is about the larger issue of
the whole subject of North American integration and the ultimate disappearance
of our borders.
The bill, like many others introduced by the Liberal
government, is like a Trojan horse. The government introduces some fairly
innocuous bills or aspects to an issue but with a secondary objective. The
primary goal in this bill is masked around the issue of making sure that there
is a free movement of goods and services between Canada and the United States,
our major trading partner.
There are some positive changes in Bill S-23,
particularly the lengthening of the period of time within which a person can
appeal a ruling by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
That was a necessary change to make given, for example,
the practice of people leaving the country to be married and then coming back
with gifts or jewellery stemming from that marriage. Many people did not
realize that there were huge customs duties on that material and there were
only 30 days to appeal. There have been cases where the opportunity to appeal
was lost. Changes in Bill S-23 will remedy this situation.
The larger issue pertains to our economic sovereignty
and about the move toward the integration of the North American economy with
the whole western hemispheric economy. Recent comments made by the ambassador
to Canada from the United States have given us even greater cause for concern
along these lines.
There have been those who advocate the idea of
expediting the process by making comparisons with the European Union. It has
made recent changes to the movement across borders between its partners to make
the free flow of goods and services easier and less cumbersome.
The relationship among Canada, the United States and
Mexico does not resemble the member states of the European Union. It has done a
much greater job to harmonize other necessary things even before contemplating
the harmonization of immigration policies, customs practices or shared
practices such as electronic passes that are being contemplated with retina
identification or palm prints.
These are fundamental shifts in the way that we do
things. The Americans are saying we should harmonize with American immigration
laws and then enter into this new relationship. It is far more than a technical
change in the way people are processed as they cross the border. It does belie
a fundamental shift in the way that we view ourselves.
There is a saying in the Holy Bible that the lion shall
lie down with the lamb. In that case the lamb does not get very much sleep. We
are very concerned that as we enter into this relationship with the United
States it will be hugely to the benefit of the Americans and lesser to
us.
In light of the recent World Trade Center tragedy Bill
S-23 should be put on hold and frozen in its place until such time as we deal
with the issue of international security stemming from the WTC
tragedy.
It is the wrong time to be dealing with issues of
economic sovereignty when we are so wholly dominated by the tragedy that
happened in New York. It is the wrong time to redefine our relationship with
the United States or to redefine our position as part of the North American
hemisphere. Bill S-23 would force us to enter into that argument and debate
long before we are ready.
(1215)
We were reminded recently of the dangers of letting our
economic sovereignty slip away. The recent trend in the past 20 years has been
toward a branch plant economy. As we predicted, the development of a branch
plant type economic base is coming to fruition.
For example, we said that if we lost control of our
industries and let the Americans dominate or foreign ownership take over,
Canadian industries would lose the ability to chart their own destiny. A
graphic example is at our doorstep.
Frustrated Americans are saying that if Canada does not
fall into a complete goose step with the United States in its current military
exercises then they would reconsider allowing their plants to continue
manufacturing in Canada. They would withdraw their Canadian branch plants of
American companies costing Canada jobs.
That is a perfect illustration of what we warned about.
If we lose our economic sovereignty we will lose our ability to have national
sovereignty and to chart our destiny as we choose instead of becoming part of
the American manifest destiny.
It is ultimately what western hemispheric integration
is all about. The Americans are deemed to be the inevitable and chosen ideal
that there should be one force in the western hemisphere and that it should be
the American economy and culture.
We are opposed to that. I am a fiercely proud Canadian
nationalist. When I look around the room for others with the same mindset I do
not see very many on either side of the House at this time.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott:
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the
NDP speaker compare the goose stepping of Hitler to America's attack on
terrorism?
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The Chair is not here to censor the words of the hon.
member, but if the hon. member would like to continue his debate he
may.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Madam Speaker, I am not trying to offend anyone with
the point that I am striving to make. Our primary concern as Canadians should
be to maintain our economic and national sovereignty. As a fiercely proud
Canadian nationalist I see very few other people speaking in those terms. We
used to hear that kind of argument from the Liberal benches back in the days of
Walter Gordon and Paul Martin Senior, and when the current member from Windsor
used to espouse those lines.
We used to hear Liberal members talking about ensuring
that too much foreign ownership does not dominate Canadian industries. That
used to be a popular theme for them. Laws and regulations were put in place to
make sure that did not happen. Part of their argument was that if our economic
sovereignty was lost we would lose the ability to be a sovereign nation.
The most paramount idea about being a sovereign nation
is to be able to chart our own destiny and control matters such as
international military exercises like the one we are about to see the Americans
embark on.
We have been essentially threatened. President Bush
told us in his speech last night that countries are either shoulder to shoulder
with America or they are with the terrorists. I find that offensive as a
Canadian who is not unquestionably shoulder to shoulder with the Americans but
that does not make me shoulder to shoulder with the terrorists.
We are advocating a third way to deal with the
international tragedy that happened at the World Trade Center within the
parameters of the international community, and that is to bring these criminals
to justice without embarking on a unilateral military exercise such as that
being contemplated by the U.S.
Canada must be cautious not to drift along with the
particular exercise. Unless we have control of our economic sovereignty we are
subject to the coercion associated with the threat of branch plants closing and
the border being sealed up.
Those are the issues that concern us about Bill S-23.
The legislation should not be up for consideration in the House of Commons at
this sensitive time in our nation's history. The bill should be put back on
ice. The flow of goods and services across our border should be dealt with at
some less sensitive time.
We are hearing all the typical and familiar buzzwords
in the news that give us cause for concern about what is the real agenda. The
current ambassador of the United States to Canada is talking about the need for
a NAFTA plus. Bill S-23 is the Liberal government's answer to a NAFTA
plus.
I remind the House that sometimes the wishes of
Americans are brought about in a circular way for procedural reasons. In 1983
the previous ambassador of the United States to Canada, Mr. Paul Robinson, in a
Maclean's magazine article stated:
--Back in January of 1983, I asked my
embassy staff to see what we could do to initiate a free trade deal with
Canada. I realized, of course, that the public initiative had to come from
Canada, because if it came from us it would look as if we were trying to gobble
up our neighbour. |
He had to get a Canadian entity to start calling for
the trade agreement, knowing full well that it was hugely to their advantage.
However the Americans wanted it to come from Canada. Otherwise Canadians would
see, in a very transparent way, that it was really their intention to gobble up
their neighbour.
(1220)
The Toronto Star reports that then U.S.
Ambassador Robinson took the idea to Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Business
Council on National Issues and unofficial prime minister, at his Ottawa home.
He was exactly who the Americans needed to promote the idea of the free trade
agreement, an agreement that would be hugely in their favour.
Interestingly enough, when the president of BCNI talks
about those days he reverses what history tells us and says it is important to
remember that it was Canadians who took the first step and asked for the free
trade agreement. It was in fact the U.S. ambassador visiting d'Aquino in his
home who asked for it, and d'Aquino dutifully delivered over the next number of
years.
We in the NDP believe the issue of North American
integration is cause for great concern. It is a subject we should be debating.
We are not afraid of having the debate but we do not think it should be in this
context. It should not be wrapped in the envelope of the issue of customs and
excise. That is crazy.
This is a Trojan horse idea. We are ostensibly here
today to debate the idea of free movement of goods and services across the
international border between Canada and the United States, but the debate is
really about western hemispheric integration into one United States of America
from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego.
It worries us when we hear the Liberal chair of the
finance committee saying that no one can deny that North American integration
is taking place. The newspaper article reports that he has emerged as the chief
advocate for a no holds barred debate on integration, an issue which did not
appear in Liberal election campaign literature in 2000.
I do not think the Liberal Party campaigned to trade
away what little is left of our economic sovereignty. I do not think its
intention upon re-election for a third term was to start passing legislation
specifically asked for by the U.S. ambassador, that would see us lose our
ability to chart our own destiny. I do not think the Liberals intended to
embark on such an agenda. I did not notice it anywhere in their party's year
2000 election campaign literature.
We are not against having a more open border at some
point. We are not against free movement of goods and services between us and
our neighbour to the south. However let us do it on equal terms. Let us do it
in a way similar to the way the European Union undertook integration. It had a
bigger problem. It has 15 nation states but it took care of basic social issues
first. It took care of the social charter that would equalize the standard of
living.
There is a huge historic imbalance in the power
relationship between Canada and the United States. That is why this is like the
lion laying down with the lamb. It is not a deal between two equals. It is a
deal between Canada and the largest economy in the world which happens to own
88% of Canadian industry. The U.S. already has a huge stake in Canada. It is
the remaining 12% of Canadian ownership of our industries that we are
bargaining with.
Some of us are not ready to give up on the idea of a
sovereign nation state in Canada that is unique and different and does not need
to harmonize with all things American.
The Canadian Alliance Party since it has been here has
thought that all things American are good and all things Canadian are retarded.
That is what we hear from the Canadian Alliance. It gets all its inspiration
from the right wing evangelical movement in the United States. Whatever Pat
Buchanan and Pat Robinson say in the United States, the Alliance brings here
and tries to sell to the Canadian public.
However we are not buying it. We are not interested.
There are still enough of us intent on preserving a distinct identity that
Canada will not buy into that mindless idea.
I hate to say it but there are those who would exploit
the tragedy in New York to expedite their vision of a single, integrated
western hemispheric identity. It is not fair to exploit the tragedy in New
York. The issue must be dealt with independently and not within the parameters
of a simpler debate about the free movement of goods and services.
(1225)
There are those of us who still care about the issue. I
hate to sound like a Liberal but I probably sound like a Liberal from 1967 when
Walter Gordon, Paul Martin Senior and others who had a vision of a unique
Canadian identity used to stand proudly in the House of Commons and argue that
we should not be economically dominated by foreign nations. They used to set
rules and regulations about foreign ownership.
Where are the champions today? The only person outside
the NDP who has spoken out in a loud and clear way is David Orchard of the
Progressive Conservative Party. He asks those questions. Hardly anyone else
seems to. Members seem to have resigned themselves to the benign indifference
of the universe. They feel that American manifest destiny is inevitable and
that there is no point in fighting it because we cannot resist it.
I put it to the House that we must have this debate
without the emotional veil that has been thrust upon it by the tragedy at the
World Trade Center in New York City. There will come a time when we must make a
choice. Are we prepared to turn out the lights on the last shred of Canadian
nationalism? Are we prepared to resign ourselves to the belief that we are
merely Americans who are a little different?
The U.S. has sensed there is a difference today in that
our Prime Minister did not rush automatically into the vengeance mode the
Americans are justifiably feeling. No one blames the American government for
speaking in strong terms about the need to avenge the assault on New York City.
However our Prime Minister, to his credit, in the first reactions to the
tragedy at the World Trade Center did not jump immediately into line with the
American call for violent military intervention and revenge.
We are now paying the price for that. A significant
number of Americans are disappointed with us. We first got snubbed when the
U.S. president met with the president of Mexico before meeting with the Prime
Minister of Canada. The second snub was in yesterday's speech, the single most
important speech the president has ever given and arguably one of the most
important speeches any U.S. president has given since the Checkers speech.
The speech did not contain one mention of Canada.
Canada was shut out and snubbed. We were chastised in a diplomatic way for not
being aggressive enough and falling into step, I would call it goose stepping,
with the military initiative with which the Americans have seen fit to avenge
the attack on their country.
I have pointed out some of the necessary and beneficial
points of Bill S-23. However we in the NDP request that the Liberals delay
consideration of the legislation until the World Trade Center tragedy has
settled. We ask the government to freeze Bill S-23 pending investigation into
its ramifications for western hemispheric integration.
(1230)
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre recognizes that supporting business, especially Canadian
business, is important.
We all know that about 85% of our trade is with the
U.S. Bill S-23 is aimed at reducing costs for business by facilitating
cross-border travel and business shipments. The bill also aims to protect the
country from risk in terms of illegal shipping, including the passage into
Canada of undesirable individuals.
I am sure the hon. member recognizes that we are trying
to strengthen our border security, reduce risks for Canada and protect our
business interests.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Madam Speaker, I think I made it clear that NDP members
recognize the value of free and easy movement of goods and services between our
two countries. That is clear. However we are concerned because when the U.S.
ambassador to Canada calls for a more open border he is calling for retina and
palm scanners to identify people. He is calling for electronic boxes on the
bottoms of trucks that frequently cross the border so they can speed through
without being interrupted. If we adopt such changes the U.S. might also want
integrated immigration and perimeter security systems; in other words, North
America-wide shared security.
It is a package deal. If we buy into what we see as
housekeeping changes to the way we process goods and people crossing the border
we must also buy into the idea of harmonizing our immigration system, customs
enforcement procedures and border security along our water perimeter. The NDP
is not prepared to go that far to accommodate the quicker movement of goods and
services.
(1235)
Mr. Maurice Vellacott
(Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, could the NDP member clarify or perhaps
withdraw his remarks? How could an NDP member of the House possibly compare the
contemplated actions of the Americans, of which we do not know all the details,
to Hitler's goose stepping? How could he compare their response against
terrorism to that?
The American's current assertiveness is due to their
concern about the terrible things that happened to them last week. How could
the hon. member possibly speak of that in the same breath as Hitler's goose
stepping? I cannot comprehend why the NDP member or his party would do that.
Perhaps he misspoke himself when he said it.
Could the member withdraw his remarks and indicate that
he misspoke himself?
Mr. Pat Martin:
Madam Speaker, President George Bush stated in his
speech last night that we are either shoulder to shoulder with the United
States or shoulder to shoulder with terrorists. That is what led to my remarks.
We in the NDP see a third alternative which the Prime
Minister and other ministers have also articulated or tried to get across.
There are international and multilateral options we can explore.
I was trying to convey the sentiment that Canada should
not fall automatically into line and goose step behind the most simplistic
solution, which is a strong military strike at this time. We should resist and
oppose that. That is an example of how differently I would like to believe our
country is treating the issue. It is a graphic illustration of how Canada seeks
to solve problems somewhat differently than the United States.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, however well intentioned the member for
Winnipeg Centre might be, I wonder if he has read the bill. Bill S-23 has
nothing to do with economic nationalism or grandiose philosophical themes. It
has nothing to do with harmonization.
Has the member turned on his television recently and
seen the huge lineups of trucks at the border trying to get goods into the U.S.
market? We know that many of the trucks and individuals trying to get through
are low risk or no risk.
The whole intent of Bill S-23 is to try to streamline
those processes and look at pre-approval or self-assessment with sanctions for
non-compliance. That is what the bill is all about. That is why it is needed
today more than ever.
I know that members on this side of the House met with
business people in Sarnia and Windsor not too long ago. This is exactly the
kind of thing they need because trucks are getting stuck at the border. If
there was ever a time when we needed this bill it is today. It has nothing to
do with integration with the United States.
Has the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre read the bill?
If he has not, will he undertake to do so?
(1240)
Mr. Pat Martin:
Madam Speaker, we are quite aware of what is in the
bill. The negatives that we pointed out were things such as Canada not being
ready for the debate on automation of our border. There are a number of other
more practical aspects that I perhaps could have pointed out, such as the job
loss associated with the automation of the border crossings. That has not been
raised in the House and it probably should be.
Also the hon. member's intervention tries to lead us to
believe that the bill was put forward as a result of the tragedy of the World
Trade Center. It was not. It originated in the Senate long before this
emergency took place.
I would ask the hon. member or representatives of the
Liberal Party this. If this bill has such great merit and there is no
subterfuge going on, why did it not originate in the House of Commons, as does
most government business? We could then have debated these things openly,
upfront and not have worried about what kind of a secondary objective the
government was trying to achieve.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I object to the entire direction that
the hon. member took during his speech; his references to goose stepping and
American militarism. Maybe he was watching a different television feed than I
was last week, but the United States was attacked. Several thousand Americans
did die in an unprovoked attack upon civilian targets, people who went about
their peaceful business. People of all races, all colours and all religions
were killed. We are hearing that attempts to deal with this are somehow
comparable to the sorts of things that Adolf Hitler did. For goodness, sake
this is an offence. This should be withdrawn.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Madam Speaker, let me be clear. There was no reference
to Adolf Hitler. When I mentioned the word goose stepping, I said that Canada
should not be quick to goose step behind one point of view without exploring
other avenues of recourse to settle this international tragedy.
It should be settled in an international venue. The
United Nations has been raised as the logical place to deal with this. This is
not the same situation. There is no parallel in military or world history to
draw from in terms of a terrorist attacking a nation state with such a degree
of devastation. When we declare war, we declare war on another country, another
nation state.
This is a unique situation that calls for a unique
resolve. The NDP is calling for the Canadian government to find that third
choice. It is not a choice of shoulder to shoulder with the United States or
shoulder to shoulder with the terrorists. There is a third middle ground that
we should be seeking, and I am pleased to see that in most cases our government
is in fact following that voice of reason.
When I raised it in the context of losing our economic
sovereignty, I used it as an example of one of the situations where we would be
less able to control our own destiny and where we would be bound to rush to the
aid, in an unquestionable way, of our dominant economic partner as we lost our
economic sovereignty and our ability to chart our own destiny as a
nation.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of
the PC/DR coalition. I will begin my remarks by rebutting some of the comments
made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. I count him as a colleague.
We worked together on the immigration committee, but I profoundly disagree with
the assertions he made in his speech today.
I will begin by rebutting the statement that can be
construed as being anti-American. At this time in our history this is not the
time to proceed along this way of thinking. The United States has been looking
for diplomatic solutions to the problem. It has not retaliated with a quick
strike. Are the Americans responding? Yes they are and so they should, and we
should be supporting them and be with them as well.
They are looking at economic and multilateral solutions
to this crisis, They are bringing people along with them rather than striking
quickly in some act of revenge as the member seems to be portraying.
The United States is a country that has welcomed
immigrants from around the world. That was evident in the fact that there were
individuals tragically taken from 62 different countries in the event in New
York City. Let us not kid ourselves or try to pretend that our American friends
and very close family are not a strong country, a welcoming country or a
tolerant society because they are a tolerant and welcoming society. We have
more in common with our friends from the United States than the member seems to
know.
I want to rebut that way of thinking, particularly at
this time, and send a message to our American friends that all members in this
place would not be in sympathy with that kind of thinking because this is a
time for action.
I want to turn to the bill before us today, Mr.
Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair. I know that you are a learned and
wise member of the House. I congratulate you on your ascendancy to the
chair.
I might add that I was disappointed in some of the
comments made by the Minister of National Revenue this morning. In the face of
what has happened in the world, it seems the government is carrying on as
though nothing has changed. We are living in a different world now because of
the tragic events that happened on September 11. It appears as though the
government has simply blown the dust off a bill it had before this place
previously, added a few comments in the minister's speech at the beginning and
end, and has continued on as though nothing has changed.
The Americans' response to this tragic event was to
gather congress together. They put together in 24 hours a detailed bill that
reflected the new realities of what was happening in the United States, the
amount of money that would be required to rebuild in New York and to increase
security. Within 24 hours there was a detail coming together and response of
America's leaders.
What do we have today in this place? A dusted off bill
that does not address the new realities as a result of the tragic events of
September 11. That is a shame. It demonstrates a lack of leadership from the
government to address the details that need to be addressed.
I agree with my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona who
proposed an amendment that the bill be withdrawn for reconsideration because it
does not adequately address the new realities before us in our world, in our
country and in dealing with our biggest trading partner and closest friend, the
United States.
(1245)
The minister today in the House talked about the
management of our borders as an evolving process. I agree. It is going to
evolve very quickly in ways that Canada needs to be engaged in and prepared to
act together with. The evolving processes could very well be that the Americans
say to us that they are moving on, that they want a secure border and perimeter
around North America because our systems are so integrated. Individuals who
come to Canada do have easy access to the United States. I do not think it is
unreasonable for our neighbours to the south to ask us to work together with
them. We need to do that and do it in more than just words. We need to commit
by action.
I would submit that the bill demonstrates the level of
commitment that the government has to making substantive changes that will make
an effect.
One of my Liberal colleagues mentioned that there were
long border lineups. Yes, there are and that will continue for a
while.
The minister talked about a CANPASS program, a NEXUS
program and a kiosk program to help speed up trade. We had better give our
heads a shake if we think that the Americans will not look at those programs to
see if they need to be revised. We had better get into the game with our good
friend and closest ally because very quickly we could find ourselves on the
outside looking in. Should that happen, that will have a huge impact on our
economy, on our way of life and on our values.
I do not know if other members heard the speech by the
president last night. One thing I noticed was that he was firm in his resolve.
He has the American people, a united congress, the senate and the leadership of
the entire nation solidly behind him and he is moving ahead to gather that kind
of support worldwide.
I submitted earlier this week to the government that it
had the same environment within Canada in terms of people wanting to support
our friends and allies. The polls showed that approximately 80% of the people
wanted us to help and support our closest ally. Yet we see very little concrete
action. We hear words. We helped out at the very beginning. I acknowledge that
and I congratulate those involved. It is time to continue on helping in
concrete practical ways.
The bill fails to address those realities. We have many
border crossings in our country that are not open 24 hours a day. They have
remote cameras and close at 10 o'clock at night or midnight. Those are things
that have to be considered in this new reality.
Are there many access points from Canada to the United
States? Yes, there are. Do we want freer trade with America? Yes, of course we
do. However, to ignore the new realities of what has happened in our world is
just simply wrong. To ignore those new realities borders on negligence from the
government because our country's economy is so integrated with the Untied
States.
I and members of our coalition would liked to have
seen, and I think all opposition members would have liked to have seen, some
leadership from the minister on this bill in a way that would address these
kinds of concerns that I am bringing forward.
I want to focus on one particular aspect of the bill
called voluntary compliance. The minister talked about it this
morning.
(1250)
Let us spell out for people what that actually means.
What that means is that on the Atlantic coast and on the coast of British
Columbia ships arriving with goods are to call into a customs branch. That is
what voluntary compliance means. We do have large unprotected borders.
If people were abusing the goodwill and freedoms of
this country by engaging in an illegal activity, would they, as they arrived on
our shores, pick up the phone and say that they are here, that they are
bringing in illegal contraband and that they will be moving through the United
States? No, that will not happen. We have a system in place that does not
address those kinds of things in light of the new realities that happened as a
result of September 11.
Last night in this place one of my colleagues from the
Liberal side mentioned that we should not be talking about this as a battle of
good and evil, that we just need to address the root causes and concerns of
this issue. The real issue is about those who would do things that are evil. It
is about a battle between good and evil. Though there may be just a few engaged
in that, those few can wreak havoc among the many, as we sorely found out. For
us to put our head in the sand and continue on as though nothing has changed is
simply wrong.
Another colleague from the Liberal side quoted
President Roosevelt, in a time of similar circumstances, going into World War
II. He drew on the famous comment made that Americans should walk softly and
carry a big stick. It seems as though the motto of this government has become
to walk blindly and carry an empty bag of promises because there is a lot of
talk but not enough action.
The actions we have seen from the government during its
eight years in power are slowly starving the resources of our intelligence
division, CSIS, within the RCMP, the RCMP and immigration funding, and an
integrated approach to sharing intelligence information between those different
agencies. It has had an impact and we are reaping the benefits of what the
government's policies have been in those areas for these past eight
years.
We would hope there would be quick response, in light
of the events of September 11, to put more resources into those areas and to
consider working closely with our friends in the United States. We need to look
at the idea of a perimeter in which we are on the inside instead of a perimeter
where we are on the outside looking in, as my colleague from the NDP would seem
to want.
I want to touch on something my colleague from
Edmonton--Strathcona mentioned in his speech. He eloquently described his own
experience as a refugee fleeing from Uganda under the regime of Idi Amin.
I want to disavow the false argument that to consider
increasing security within our nation has to go hand in hand with the notion
that we no longer welcome immigrants or refugees to our country. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can look at
increasing security in this country, and we must, but at the same time we can
remain a country with a very strong immigration policy that supports the
foundation of our country which was built on immigration.
At the same time, not to address security issues in
that area and others is simply negligent and cannot be done.
(1255)
Over the last seven to ten days many of us have been
taken with the events that have happened and how they have changed our world
forever. There is a lot of concern for many people, but there is concern on
this side of the House that the government will handle this situation as it has
handled others over and over again, and that is to sit and wait.
We have heard the talking points of taking a balanced
approach. Yes, that is good. However, what has happened too often with the
Liberal government is that a balanced approach has become a catch phrase for
doing absolutely nothing when something needs to be done and leadership needs
to be shown. If there were ever a time in our nation when our country, our
neighbour's country and our world were looking for leadership, it is
now.
I regret that the Minister of National Revenue has
simply dusted off the bill from whence it came and reintroduced it without
considering the new realities that happened as a result of September
11.
I will read some commentary from a news article of
today in the Toronto Star. It says:
But nothing in the proposed bill,
which goes back to the Commons for second reading today, is new. Nor have
amendments or tighter border controls been introduced to the bill since last
Tuesday's terror attacks on the U.S. It was first tabled and passed in the
Senate last spring in a bid to speed trade over the border. |
Further on in the article it states:
Top customs officials admitted to
reporters it would be difficult to refuse a CANPASS to anyone who was, like
“sleeper” terrorists in the U.S., perfectly integrated into the community with
no criminal history. |
A CANPASS is an expedited pass to get people back and
forth across the border.
The above article is part of this new reality. If we
think we can continue on without some implications of the events that have
occurred in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, we are dreaming. The
government is sleepwalking.
A better approach would have been to get the experts in
this area together, to consult with our colleagues across the border to address
the new concerns that have arisen as a result of last week's events. That has
not happened. It certainly is not reflected in the actions of the bill before
us. It is beyond me how we can pretend to continue on in this place without
taking concrete actions to address these problems.
It is my hope that we as leaders in this place get on
with striking committees quickly and with getting the people involved in trade
to the table here. We must make the concrete changes necessary to address the
new realities. We hope the government's motto will not be to walk blindly and
carry a bag of empty promises. It must take concrete action. It has the will of
the people and the support of the opposition parties to make these
changes.
We implore the government to do the right thing and not
pass this bill, which does not address the concerns, but get on with making the
concrete changes that are necessary.
(1300)
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague questions whether the
U.S. would support the programs contained in Bill S-23.
I point out to the member and to anyone else who cares
to listen that these programs, CANPASS, EPPS, NEXUS, are all similar to
programs that currently exist in the United States. We are joint partners with
the United States in the NEXUS program. The member talks as though we have no
connection whatsoever or that somehow we have not consulted and that we are
acting in isolation. This is not true.
How can the member say that the United States is not
aware of these programs when we are joint partners with the United States? The
member knows that. Trying to score a few cheap political points is
inappropriate. I would like him to withdraw the fact that the United States is
not aware of these programs. It is well aware of them. It is our
partner.
Mr. Grant McNally:
Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. I never said that.
He can check Hansard. The United States is clearly aware of these
programs. What I said, and perhaps I will say it louder so he can hear it this
time, is that if we do not take into account the new realities that happened on
September 11, and that it is business as usual, and all the programs that we
have negotiated with our friends are just going to continue on, were are in a
dream world.
Mr. John O'Reilly: You are in a dream
world.
Mr. Grant McNally: The member says that he is in
a dream world. Of course he is because he has not taken into consideration one
of the main points in my speech. If we do not get to the table with our
partners now after the changes of September 11 and start talking about these
kinds of things, a 12 hour border lineup is going to look like a short one for
those who are exporting goods from our country to the United States.
We had better get involved. The member says that this
is scaremongering. This is an honest question. It is something that the
government needs to consider. If it does not think about these things, it is
negligent and shame on the government.
(1305)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, I listened to most of the hon. member's
speech, although I was out of the room for part of it, but I did not hear him
answer the question that was raised by the Alliance member in the form of a
motion about putting Bill S-23 away for the time being to deal with the larger
issue of the international tragedy that happened at the World Trade
Center.
Is it the position of the PC/DR coalition that it would
like to see Bill S-23 go ahead but with the changes that he spoke about? Or is
he in favour of our position and, I believe, the position of the motion, that
Bill S-23 should not be considered at this time, at least until such time as
the World Trade Center tragedy has been dealt with and the other issues of
national security are dealt with?
Mr. Grant McNally:
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the question and
perhaps it was at the time when he had other business to attend to that I
actually did say that as an individual member I do support the
motion.
Let me read the amendment as proposed by my colleague
from the Alliance. It reads:
|
that
this House declines to give second reading is to Bill S-23, an act to amend the
Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, since the principle
of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at
Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities. |
What I said throughout my speech was that I was
disappointed that the Minister of National Revenue took out the old bill, blew
the dust off of it and brought it in here. It sounded like the same kind of
speech that has been given in this place before, as though nothing has changed
in our world.
I do not think the minister has looked at changes that
reflect the new realities based on the tragic events of September
11.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre,
NDP):
Madam Speaker, another matter comes to mind. The hon.
member may have noticed in the National Post of yesterday, I believe, an
article about the U.S. seeking common immigration rules.
It states that the U.S. ambassador to Canada yesterday
sketched out the Bush administration's vision of a North American security
perimeter that would go beyond the use of technology to speed up border
crossings and go into the delicate substance of national refugee and
immigration policies. In other words, as I mentioned in my speech, the U.S.
ambassador is promoting the harmonization of immigration and refugee policies
as a subject to sharing the new technological advances to speed up the transfer
of goods and services across the border.
What is the position of the PC/DR coalition on the
integration and harmonization of immigration and refugee policies as an aspect
of improving the border crossings?
Mr. Grant McNally:
Madam Speaker, I reflected on this in my speech. I will
remind my colleague again that those are things we need to consider, talk about
and debate. To reject them out of hand at the beginning of the discussion is
unwise. We will have the possibility of the reality of our biggest trading
partner keeping us on the outside looking in if we do not look at those kinds
of questions.
Let me paint a practical application. Imagine that the
United States puts in place some regulations having to do with air travel such
that all flights in the United States have an air marshal on them. We have
already heard the Minister of Transport reject that in this place as a radical
notion. Let us say that our government decides we will not have air marshals on
our flights to the United States which originate in Canada. A very real,
practical application is that those flights would not get into American air
space any more.
For us not to talk with our closest trading partner,
ally and friend would be negligent. We must talk about these things. We must
consider them and take concrete action to work together. It will have a
devastating impact within our own economy and on our own way of life in Canada
if we take an anti-American, holier than thou attitude on these kinds of
things. We cannot do that. We have to get rid of that kind of rhetoric and
openly, honestly and in a bipartisan way work together to solve these
problems.
It will impact all of us as members because it will
impact all of our constituents, no matter what region of the country we
represent. As we know, approximately 80% of our population lives within an
hour's drive of the border. To not ask these questions and not consider them at
the beginning of these kinds of debates would be irresponsible. We must
consider these kinds of questions raised by the member.
(1310)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I consider
the comments with references to goose stepping made by the member for Winnipeg
Centre are a stain on the House. They should have been withdrawn and I regret
that the member chose not to do so.
Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Customs Act and other
related acts. The fact that we are even talking about the bill today is
symptomatic of everything that is wrong with our government's priorities given
the tragic events of September 11.
As I said last night, the government is behaving as if
there is no crisis, no urgency and no need for critical action. There is every
appearance that the government's posture is to defend the status quo on every
front.
The events of September 11 have been taken seriously by
other countries, but our government's priorities are clear. Given what we
witnessed last night with the speech from George Bush and given the absence of
our Prime Minister, I can only say that the message we as a country are
continuing to send out is doing a great disservice to Canadians, to Canada's
national interests and to the international community.
The bill is essentially unchanged from earlier bills
that have been kicked around. It is based on the 1995 Canada-U.S. shared border
accord. What we are doing with this legislation is unilateral action. We are
being boy scouts. This will speed passage. It focuses on frequent users and it
is a one way item for people going from the U.S. to Canada.
The timing is all wrong. It is wrong to approach this
unilaterally. For example, yesterday I met with representatives from the
Canadian Trucking Association. It clearly sees this bill in the very same way.
We heard comments from the U.S. ambassador to Canada and from Colin Powell, the
U.S. secretary of state. Canadians and Canadian industry in general know
intrinsically that the real issue here is not what is represented by Bill S-23.
The real issue here is anti-terrorism.
Earlier this week the government defeated an Alliance
motion which was very simple and straightforward. I will repeat it for the
benefit of Canadians because I think it is important that they understand what
we were trying to accomplish and how reasonable it is given our current
critical circumstances.
We called upon the government to introduce
anti-terrorism legislation “similar in principle to the United Kingdom's
Terrorism Act, 2000”. Let me add that there is also anti-terrorism legislation
in the United States.
(1315)
The legislation we are asking for would: name all known
international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; call for a complete
ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism; and provide provisions
for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations.
It would also call for the immediate ratification of the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. Canada signed
that convention years ago but it has never been ratified because the government
has not brought it before the House.
The legislation would call also for the creation of
specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or
inciting from Canada terrorist acts abroad. It calls for the prompt extradition
of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are
capital offences, and the detention and deportation to their country of origin
of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been
linked to terrorist organizations.
I doubt if we could find 10% of Canadians who would
disagree with the contents of that motion, but the government closed ranks and
defeated it. More troubling than that are the games that have been played since
that time on another front in this place.
The Canadian Alliance asked for a list of officials to
be summoned before committees. For example, for the justice committee, the
solicitor general, the director of CSIS and the commissioner of the RCMP were
asked to appear. For the foreign affairs committee the Minister of Foreign
Affairs was asked to appear. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was
asked to appear at the citizenship and immigration committee. For the transport
committee we asked for the minister and the president of Air Canada. We asked
that the Minister of National Defence, the chief of defence staff and the chief
of the Communications Security Establishment appear at the defence committee.
For the revenue and customs committee we asked for the Minister of National
Revenue and the head of Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to appear as
witnesses.
That is a fairly comprehensive list of witnesses we
asked to have come before committees. This would be considered perfectly
reasonable, rational and responsible in most parliamentary and western
democracies. Anything less would be considered or construed to be a
dereliction.
What has happened since that time? At two of those
committee meetings Liberals pulled out of the meetings one at a time until
quorum could no longer be reached, to disallow the proceeding of those motions
to have those people come before committee. The government is trying to deny
this occurred but it did occur and it is simply unacceptable behaviour,
particularly at a time when we should not be playing games. If there is one
time when we want to empower our parliamentarians, it is at a time like this.
Instead, the government is doing the complete opposite.This is such a stark
contrast to what is happening in the U.S. congress, for example, where there is
a coming together and a national will, not only in congress, which is showing
leadership, but in the population as well.
If we held a mirror up to Canada, we would see that the
direction the government has taken on this issue is reflected in divisions
appearing in our population at large even though 81% of Canadians, according to
very recent polling this week, are very supportive of complete support for the
U.S. in terms of military engagement and other activities.
(1320)
It is clear that the Canadian public is far and away
much further ahead than the government on this whole issue. The Canadian public
has been done a great disservice by the government's actions to date. We are at
the end of week one of a parliamentary session following the tragedy of
September 11 and we have yet to see clear direction from the government. We
have yet to see our Prime Minister even set foot in Washington or New
York.
I would like to quote U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell. I am not the first one to quote him in this place. As a matter of fact,
I quoted him last night when we stayed in this place until midnight. Colin
Powell said: “Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their
borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We
are going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which
they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United
States”.
There are ties that bind us with the United States:
family ties, business ties, historical ties, the fact that we have aided each
other in times of war and in times of adversity. Given all of that, friendship
has to be earned. I can certainly call America our best friend because it has
earned and deserves that title. Right now Americans are questioning whether we
deserve that title. It will be based on performance, not rhetoric and empty
promises.
What is essential now is not what is in Bill S-23. I do
not know what it signals other than the government has no important priority to
achieving anything real in terms of what is required in order to address the
current crisis that we are all in together in terms of
anti-terrorism.
If we want to talk about a perimeter security strategy,
some unilateral boy scout border crossing ideas are out of place in the current
context in terms of timing and are not currently supported by Canadian industry
because the timing is wrong. Canadian industry and everyone is calling for us
to toughen up our perimeter security through an effective strategy. We have to
work with our American colleagues on achieving that.
We must take a step back, look where we are headed on
passage of people and goods between Canada and the U.S., and make some very
essential changes.
There is no question that since NAFTA has come into
effect, trade and passage of people has increased tremendously between the two
countries. It has had a positive influence. I think the government has actually
taken a lot of the beneficial effects for granted. As soon as we do that, we
forget that there are responsibilities that go with all of that.
(1325)
We have a huge industry that is potentially affected by
the lack of a perimeter security strategy and that could lead to problems with
delays at our border crossings. The government is not saying that we do not
have U.S. government buy-in on the direction of the bill. It is not prepared to
go there. It has not been prepared to go there even before September 11. Unless
we are in lockstep with the U.S. on this, then it is the wrong thing to do. It
is the wrong thing to do at this time anyway.
There is a dichotomy here. The primary function of
customs border crossing officials under U.S. jurisdiction is enforcement. The
primary function and the reporting mechanism for our officials is collection of
revenue through duties and taxes. We have simply got it all wrong. Many, if not
most, of our border crossing customs officials agree that they are in the wrong
department. They should not be reporting to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
They are finding more and more that their job is dealing with criminal code
infractions, not taxes and tariffs. NAFTA did dispose of many of those. That is
not to say that we still do not have some tariffs and taxes to collect, but
that is no longer the primary function. If we have an anti-terrorism stance,
that is obviously one area where we could change everything.
The U.S. has its well recorded continuing concerns
about security risks emanating from Canadian jurisdiction. It is the opinion of
many people who are looking at this whole border crossing issue from an
academic perspective and it was clear even before the events of September 11
that there would have to be some major changes. We thought we had maybe a three
or five year window to make those changes. I always got the feeling that the
government thought maybe we had a five or a ten year window. The events of
September 11 have telescoped that time. We no longer have the ability to look
at the border crossing issue and perimeter security in that kind of time frame.
We need a sense of urgency. It virtually has to be one of our prime
considerations right now. It is a prime role of parliament and the government
to do this. Instead there is silence from the government and it is business as
usual. The bill makes no sense given the current context and the government is
pretending it is business as usual.
We clearly need to ensure that it is as hard or harder
for a terrorist to get into Canada than it is to go directly to the United
States. Nothing less is acceptable. This will be good for the security and
safety of Canadians and the security and safety of our neighbours. It will be
positive for international trade and it will be positive in every other fashion
as well. That is where we must go. We must do it with urgency.
(1330)
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument seems to be
rooted in the notion that the American authorities have criticized the security
at Canadian borders. I have listened to this debate all morning. This is the
fourth reference made to criticisms by Colin Powell. Sometimes I get nervous
that if something gets repeated often enough, it becomes fact.
I am fully aware of an interview that the American
secretary of state gave to ABC News in which he spoke the almost identical
words that the member referred to. For anyone who reads the transcript or heard
that interview, there is absolutely no misunderstanding that he was referring
to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That interview transcript appeared in an article
in the Toronto Star, subsequently followed by a columnist's paraphrasing
of it.
The member has stated that Colin Powell, the secretary
of state of the United States, is critical of and has concerns with Canadian
border security. Is he prepared to table a document in the House, and I am not
talking about a columnist's paraphrase of an interview, which demonstrates that
the secretary of state for the United States has made a direct criticism of
Canadian border security?
The member has made a very serious accusation here. I
think that this is an important time to clear this up. I therefore ask that if
he has such a document to table it. If he does not, then stand and admit that
he does not. Let us deal in fact not myth because I believe that is one of the
problems we are faced with when we are dealing with this crisis.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Joe Jordan: He said it and he does not have
one.
Mr. Philip Mayfield:
Turn on your fax machine.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Order please. Are we going to debate each other?
Members have to address the Chair and I will name a member.
The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.
Mr. John Duncan:
Madam Speaker, I see that I have hit a nerve on the
government side.
I think if they were to review Hansard, I said
that the United States has concerns regarding security risks emanating from
Canada. In aid of that I did cite a quote by Colin Powell which was reported in
the news media, but I could have chosen other quotes from other American
authorities, including the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
I am not sure what the member's point is. If he is
trying to suggest that Canada is not perceived to be a security risk in the
United States, then I would say that he is sorely misinformed. The whole issue
of perimeter security strategy is what I would like to focus on, not some red
herring that the government member wants to throw out to try to obfuscate the
primary issue. The government should focus on what is at risk, what is urgent
and what is critical, not on some other aspect to obfuscate, to support its
tendency, which is to completely hold the status quo because that is where it
is most comfortable.
(1335)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, in the early 1990s if I recall
correctly, there were some serious imbalances in the province of Ontario. I
think at one point one million people were on unemployment in this province and
it had a double digit unemployment rate. Fortunately, through the free trade
agreement and other things that started to take root, we probably had a much
better political climate in this province somewhere in the mid-1990s. It was
pro economic security and social security.
As a result of free trade and a different policy at the
provincial level, companies such as Honda Motor Corporation, Toyota and other
auto companies have made major commitments to the province of Ontario. However,
the other day I was disturbed to hear the president of Honda Motor Corporation
say that he was concerned because of the border problems that we have in this
country. It is not the flow out of the U.S. into Canada that is the problem
right now, it is the flow the other way. The Honda people are really
questioning their commitment to this country and any future investments here.
If they are thinking that way, I think a lot of other people are as
well.
People are concerned about economic and social
security, not just national security. This is a very big issue. I would ask my
hon. colleague to respond to these kinds of problems which seem to be
emerging.
Mr. John Duncan:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking about the
world of economic reality. It is important to recognize that industry
recognizes exactly what was said and that is that the current cross-border
uncertainties for investors and others relates to going from north to south and
not from south to north.
The implications of the bill, should it be implemented,
would exacerbate that. It would make the flow from south to north even more
readily available and that would work against Canadian manufacturing interests.
We want to see a legitimate free flow of goods in an expedited fashion, but we
cannot be boy scouts in this regard. We cannot do it without political buy-in
from both sides of the border, and we do not have it.
(1340)
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, many Canadians are disappointed that the
Prime Minister has not yet set foot in the U.S. We know he is going on Monday.
They wonder why he has not travelled to ground zero when so many world leaders
have crossed oceans to go to the United States. Would the member like to
comment on that?
Mr. John Duncan:
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government
have sent the worst possible message to the U.S. by the demonstrable
non-actions of the Prime Minister. A trip to the U.S., specifically to
Washington and New York, would be a crucial element.
Many other world leaders have preceded our Prime
Minister to Washington and some to New York. We are the closest neighbour and a
traditional ally. The logistics for getting from our capital to their capital
are much simpler for the Canadian Prime Minister than for the prime minister or
president of any of the nations that we are making comparisons with right now.
This is what makes it all the more passing strange.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on Bill S-23 I
want to comment on the speech that was made by the NDP member from Winnipeg. He
was asked to clarify his comments regarding Canada's agreement to participate
with the American retaliation against terrorism. He referred to it as goose
stepping with the United States, a clear reference to Nazism.
The member for Dewdney--Alouette and the member for
Vancouver Island North are right that the Prime Minister has not responded with
the due leadership Canadians want. However the Prime Minister is on his way to
the United States. While he is not meeting with the president of the United
States the Chamber needs to support the Prime Minister when he states that
Canada will support the United States in its response to the recent terrorist
acts.
It is absolutely and thoroughly irresponsible for any
member of this Chamber to think it is Nazi-like behaviour. That is utterly
irresponsible on the part of the member from the NDP and I would urge him to
consider withdrawing that remark. Canada needs to stand united against
terrorism.
We do not take pot shots at the United States by saying
that we are endeavouring to rid the world of terrorism and those who would
destroy the very pluralism the NDP says it was founded to protect. The hon.
member dares to say that the behaviour of standing united with the forces of
freedom and democracy is Nazi-like. That is intolerable and his constituents
will be ashamed of those comments. It is astonishing how we can be distracted
by some insufferable comments that drag the country down.
Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Customs Act and to
make related amendments to other acts. I am in favour of what is contained in
Bill S-23. However it does not effectively achieve its stated goal of
modernizing and simplifying border operations and providing a new vision for
border management and trade administration.
Members on the other side of the House might be
surprised by those comments. If they read the same overview I did, they are
probably wondering how one could possibly say that it does not achieve its
stated goal.
Could it be that I am not in favour of simplifying
border procedures or that I am opposed to reducing bureaucracy? Could it be
that I am ignorant of the fact that many of the proposed changes of Canpass,
EPPS, Nexus and customs self-assessment have already been successfully tested
in pilot projects? Was I unaware of the fact that Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency is planning to phase in the implementation of these initiatives at the
end of October and that the private sector is largely in favour of them? The
answer to all three questions is a very strong no.
If these were ordinary times I would be more strongly
in support of this initiative but after the events of Tuesday, September 11, we
are not living in ordinary times. If all the initiatives in the bill were
implemented flawlessly the result would be to dramatically improve customs and
immigration procedures at Canadian points of entry. Specifically it would
facilitate the entry into Canada of preapproved travellers and it would reduce
border waiting times for Canada bound trucks.
Bill S-23 would make it much simpler for Canadians to
import goods from the United States and for Americans to visit Canada. These
are both positive developments. However, unless Bill S-23 is mirrored by
reciprocal legislation in the United States, the end result will be to make it
easier to import U.S. goods into Canada than to import Canadian goods into the
United States.
In a country whose standard of living is largely
dependent on a $90 billion plus trade surplus with the United States any policy
that would promote imports while discouraging exports should not be supported.
If it is easier to be based in the United States and
export to Canada than it is to be based in Canada and export to the United
States, businesses will choose to locate in the United States. The United
States offers manufacturers lower taxes than we do and the stability of a huge
300 million person domestic market with a per capital GDP of over $31,000. We
are now granting them easier access into Canada through Bill S-23.
Bill S-23, unless it is mirrored by similar legislation
in the United States, gives manufacturers one more reason to pick a U.S.
location over a Canadian one with tariff free, hassle free access to the
markets of the other country.
If Bill S-23 were mirrored by U.S. legislation the
result would be terrific for Canadian businesses. The Canada-U.S. border would
be more similar to the national borders within the European Union and would
give Canadians further proof that NAFTA does indeed work.
(1345)
It would allow just in time manufacturing operations to
span both sides of the border. This is important because just in time
manufacturing is a growing part of our economy, particularly in the auto
sector.
For example, the GM plant in Oshawa buys its car seats
from Lear Corporation's seating plant in nearby Whitby. The Lear plant is
located beside a foam manufacturing plant. When GM decides to make a blue
sedan, the order for the seats is sent, usually in block orders, to Lear which
then sends the orders for foam. The foam company makes the seats and ships them
to GM. There is a loading dock at the GM plant right at the point of assembly
where they are installed. Within an hour of the time at which GM orders the
seats they are being unloaded right onto the assembly line and installed into
the cars. There is no warehousing and no inventory. This is manufacturing
perfection.
In this example the entire operation is based in
Ontario. Bill S-23 would allow a Windsor auto plant to enter into a similar
arrangement with an American supplier by drastically simplifying the
importation into Canada of products shipped by reliable carriers and being
imported by reliable persons.
Bill S-23 would allow an American manufacturer to enter
into a just in time contract with a Canadian buyer. Unless Bill S-23 is
mirrored by comparable U.S. legislation, a Canadian manufacturer would not be
in a position to enter into a just in time contract with a U.S. buyer no matter
how efficient the Canadian manufacturer is.
This is just one example of how Bill S-23 could
potentially make the playing field uneven. Recent border shutdowns which caused
a parts shortage at 10 vehicle assembly plants in southern Ontario showed how
crucial free access across the Canada-U.S. border has become to the automotive
sector and to our economy as a whole.
The National Post of Wednesday reported that the
shutdown prompted Honda Motor Company president Hiroyuki Yoshino to suggest
that Honda may build more plants in the U.S. to avoid similar future delays in
the movement of parts. Honda employs 2,200 at its plant in Alliston, Ontario.
We need to have policies to encourage it to expand, not retract. While Bill
S-23 may make it easier for Honda to import seats from Michigan it does not
make it easier for it to sell transmissions or subassemblies to the United
States Honda operations in Ohio.
Unless Bill S-23 is mirrored by U.S. legislation, the
message that other companies will get is to locate in the United States because
they will have no trouble getting parts from U.S. suppliers and exporting their
products to Canada will be a snap. Already past border simplifications have
made it easier to import U.S. goods into Canada than Canadian goods into the
United States.
If we surf the web we will likely find that many of the
more sophisticated U.S. web merchants have GST registration numbers. They can
promise overnight delivery to Canada because as long as the GST is paid and the
product originates in the United States, Canada customs formalities have been
simplified greatly. It is not quite as simple for people shipping to the
U.S.
With the passage of Bill S-23 we would be one more step
down the road to making Canada's border with the United States even more open,
accessible, efficient and business friendly. We are building an autobahn into
Canada but unless we encourage the United States to reciprocate by building an
autobahn into the United States from Canada we will have an uneven playing
field, a situation in which Canada's balance of trade with the United States
would gradually decline, and with it our standard of living would also decline.
Frankly I am not confident that the United States will
be building this trade autobahn any time soon. The home page of the U.S.
customs service has a banner that reads “America's front line”. They do not
consider it, as Canada does, a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. They consider
their border people a front line. That sounds more like a fence than an
autobahn to me. After the events of September 11, I certainly cannot blame them
for wanting to defend that front line. Their buildings and institutions were
attacked and destroyed and their citizens murdered.
We can tell ourselves that we feel their pain and many
Canadians, including me, do feel a sense of loss and outrage at what happened.
However there are two basic realities. First, none of our buildings collapsed
and no Canadian institution was attacked. Indeed we may take solace from the
fact that most international terrorists probably could not find NDHQ, our
equivalent of the Pentagon, on a map of downtown Ottawa. Second, there are
reasons to suspect the possibility of a Canadian link with some of the
terrorists or their supporters who caused such devastation in New York and
Washington.
America was attacked and Americans want a fortress to
defend itself against further attacks. The words America front line reassure
Americans much more than open border with Canada.
(1350)
If anyone has any doubt about that, just ask 10
Americans whether they would want an open border with Canada right now or if
they would rather have a front line, as advertised on the American customs
website.
Right now Americans have a sense of fear and that is
the mentality which we are dealing with. In other words, while Bill S-23 opens
trade from Canada to the United States, it does not do it reciprocally because
mirror legislation has not been developed in the United States, and a
heightened sense of security in the United States will not make it likely that
such legislation will see the light of day any time soon, at least not to the
extent that we would like it.
This basic reality gives us one very simple choice. We
could either be within America's frontline or outside of it. If we are outside
of it, I would not expect to see the U.S. congress pass mirror legislation such
as Bill S-23 during my lifetime frankly.
If we are inside the front line, it makes so much sense
for America to facilitate reciprocal trade with Canada, let their assembly
plants be fed by competing suppliers on both sides of the border and hope that
Wall Street and Washington will be working hard to create a U.S. equivalent to
Bill S-23. We all know that the more efficiently the border operates, the more
our collective economies will prosper. We must understand that if we see
borders as ways to collect revenue, the Americans see borders as a line of
defence, a crucial element in the defence of their republic.
In short, the official opposition does have amendments
to this legislation. We hope that they will pass. We also hope that the
government sends a clear message to the United States that Canada hopes it will
announce similar legislation to Bill S-23 so we can expand free trade in a
broader context much beyond what we have and do it on a level playing field. I
fear that by enacting this legislation without the appropriate amendments and
guidelines, the government is sending Canada down the road to an uneven playing
field with trade in the United States. We want to make sure that does not
happen.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to my
colleague from the Canadian Alliance speak. He brought forward quite a number
of very relative points.
Being a fellow member from British Columbia, I know he
is very aware of the situation with the softwood lumber agreement. He hears, as
I am sure all British Columbia MPs do, the concerns expressed by our
constituents who really question NAFTA and the whole commitment by the
Americans to free trade right now, given the ongoing dispute over softwood
lumber.
Given the context of his remarks that without
reciprocal legislation on the part of the Americans the bill once enacted will
have the potential to increase the brain drain or expansion of companies in the
United States in competition to Canadian companies, how is he going to
communicate this problem to British Columbians in particular, given the
problems we see developing with NAFTA?
(1355)
Mr. James Moore:
Madam Speaker, as I said, the communication strategy
for this particular piece of legislation would be difficult without it being
properly amended. The hon. member for Prince George is right. As a former
Prince Georgian, I know that there is a heightened sense of insecurity with
regard to trade with the United States, particularly because of the forestry
sector in north and central British Columbia.
How is this going to be communicated? It is going to be
very difficult in the sense of how this legislation has unfolded and whether or
not we do get a signal from the United States about whether we will see
reciprocal legislation. That is why the bill needs to be amended. We need to
make sure that we have those sorts of safeguards in place.
Last night on ABC, after President Bush's speech, J.D.
Hayworth, who is a republican member of congress, I believe from Tucson,
Arizona, and on the international trade committees in the United States, spoke.
He happens to believe, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister, that some of these attacks may have been based from Canada. These are
the sorts of questions he will be asking in the United States congress, and we
need to address them.
Mr. Hayworth made a very interesting remark, especially
coming from a leading member of the republican side which is the majority in
the U.S. house of representatives. He said that he believed in free trade. Just
as it was important for our borders to facilitate free trade, and we must
encourage that, we also have a constitutional requirement to ensure America's
security. He said that in these times we could not ignore that first
obligation.
The United States first responsibility and need in
these heightened times, which is appropriate given the polls in the United
States and the insecurity that people feel, is to have a heightened sense of
security at borders, not a heightened sense of trade efficiency. In that sense
I believe the finance minister, the international minister and the Prime
Minister should go to British Columbia, when the time is right and appropriate
given the current national security preoccupations, to ensure that those fears
are met.
The Prime Minister, while he cannot to it
legislatively, needs to send a strong diplomatic signal to the United States
that reciprocal legislation will be expected. If it does not happen, then I
believe that down the line we may have to look at rescinding Bill S-23,
amending it and moving motions forward. This is another reason why in these
times the appropriate committees of the House of Commons should be
reconstituted as soon as possible.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, based on what took place on September
11, I want to say for the record that I was very impressed by the Minister of
National Revenue in his response and the kind of work he did in light of those
horrific events. Also, I know for a fact that he instructed his officials to
see whether or not we could accelerate some of the implementation of the very
initiatives we are talking about today.
The fact remains that we need to pass this in order to
get those initiatives into play and start to move in the appropriate direction,
given the circumstances at hand. It is very important that we proceed and
proceed accordingly and, more to the point, proceed in a very quick way given
all the events that have transpired.
His comments and the fearmongering naturally go with
members of his party with respect to lost jobs, the so-called border issues and
that Canada is somehow to blame for this. It is too bad those people opposite
always show negativity.
Does the member not think it would be much better to
have a co-operative non-partisan approach? In the United States we see
Democrats and Republicans working very closely in light of the kind of concerns
that have taken place. Instead of playing cheap politics, as the Canadian
Alliance is doing in this very grave matter, does he not think it would be more
appropriate to co-operate, roll up their sleeves and assist the government to
ensure that what we do in this very important matter is done on behalf of all
the people in Canada?
It is easy to score cheap political points. Members of
the Canadian Alliance are always good at that, whether it be matters of
immigration or the porous border. They are waiting for something they can hang
their hats on with respect to somebody in Canada being part of the so-called
bin Laden effort.
It is a sad state of affairs when they have to delve to
these depths and go to this length to try to drag the country down, when in
reality what they should be doing is assisting and making sure that we work in
a co-operative effort.
Does the member opposite not think that it would be an
appropriate gesture to work together in the best interests of Canada because it
is in the best interests for us to support the Americans in this time of need?
Does he not think, from a philosophical point of view, that would be the best
way to go? It would be interesting to hear his response.
(1400)
Mr. James Moore:
Madam Speaker, no rhetorical farce is ever fully
complete without a rhetorical intervention from the member for
Waterloo--Wellington. That having been said, it would be more helpful if the
member was in the House to get the full gist of my comments. In fact I gave
stern rebuke to the NDP member from Winnipeg for his comments about Canada
goose stepping with the United States and engaging in neo-Nazism for daring to
stand in line with the United States. So I agree fully with the comment from
the member for Waterloo--Wellington.
We degrade debate in the House of Commons when we are
asked not to be partisan and then in the same breath, without even finishing a
sentence, make a partisan slam against the Canadian Alliance by daring to say
that we are engaging in partisanship, and comparing our system of government to
that of the United States.
As was mentioned the other day in question period,
there is a reason why there is perhaps a heightened sense of partisanship and
there is a good reason. It is because Canadians are damn angry right now.
Why did it take the Prime Minister of this country one
week to reconvene his cabinet? Why did it take us six days to reconvene the
House? Why have committees not been struck yet? Why has meaningful legislation
not been put forward?
Why has the Minister of Transport not answered the
question about whether or not a plane that flew out of Toronto's Pearson
airport on September 11, with knives and box cutters on it and headed to
Newark, New Jersey, the same place the terrorist attacks took place, was turned
around? Why would he not answer the question about whether or not that was a
security failure at the airport and whether or not there was a Canadian
connection to these attacks?
Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not
clearly answered the questions about the security at our borders in the long
term, and the passport situation?
There is a reason why there is a heightened sense of
partisanship. It is because his government is not answering clear questions in
the House.
For the hon. member's information, there is a
difference between the American system of government and the Canadian system of
government. In the American system the chief executive of that country reached
out to people with different political stripes and political values and asked
how together they could put forward a front. It took six days for the House to
reconvene before the Prime Minister even gave any other party in the House the
time of day.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, in the last week we have heard a great
deal about national security. I intend to direct my comments today to economic
security and social security.
What is the intent or the purpose of Bill S-23? The
purpose is to enhance economic security in Canada. Some time ago Canada entered
a free trade agreement with our American friends. Since that time we have
participated in an impressive economic expansion in North America.
In the 1980s we experienced double digit unemployment
rates in Canada and in the U.S. Even Canada, with a slowdown, has a 7% rate.
Our American friends are in the 4% category.
We have seen a dramatic increase in real disposable net
income across the board and a dramatic increase in productivity, especially in
the United States. I think it is a fair comment to say Canada has really
dragged in those areas.
The economic expansion has permitted our federal
government, in a fair comment, to deal with some fairly major fiscal
imbalances. The economic growth has enhanced the revenues that are flowing into
the government, which has allowed the government to timidly reduce the burden
of taxation and to finance important government programs and some that are not
so important.
The net result is that our economic security and our
social security have been enhanced.
Modern economists understand that we cannot have social
security with a second rate or third rate economy. Economic security, national
security and social security are inseparable. They are joined at the
hip.
Today our economic, social and national security are at
peril. Why is this so? Our military is weak, the product of a decade of decline
and neglect by the government. We have serious problems with terrorist groups
in this country. Some people are in denial in regard to that, but the experts
are not. This is a product of a decade of decline and neglect by our national
government in terms of immigration and refugee policy. Loose, naive, and I will
use this term, politically correct policies have made Canada a safe and
comfortable haven for dangerous individuals.
The bill opens up one lane on a two lane highway. It
frees up the movement of goods from this country to the U.S. What we do have is
a serious problem in the other lane. It is getting clogged up and blocked up
and there are serious questions as to whether that lane is ever going to open
up given the situation we are in right now.
Our decade of decline and neglect on the part of
government has had the effect of essentially closing down that other lane. In
order to protect our economic security and our social security, we must free up
that blocked lane.
(1405)
Quite simply we should be looking very seriously at
harmonizing our immigration and our refugee policies with those of our friends
in the United States. I can see some immediate benefits from this. I know that
government bureaucracies and a lot of politicians who want to protect their
turf do not see the advantages but taxpayers do. We would have a much more
efficient system. Our public servants in the United States and Canada could
work together as a team in a co-operative manner, and if we did reduce the risk
of dangerous people coming into North America we would both win. Nobody would
lose. Our economic security would be improved, our social security would be
improved and our national security would be improved. By taking this step we
would improve security in a lot of respects.
The bill is designed to enhance trade between our two
great nations. Through decisions made by this government, certain sectors do
not participate in North American free trade. They are outside the parameters
of that arrangement. Transportation, culture, banking and certain elements of
agriculture are protected by the government.
I am a member of parliament from Saskatchewan. That
province is almost totally dependent on foreign international markets and
American markets. We do not have the luxury of protection.
I am very concerned about a projected bailout for Air
Canada. In my view any step by the government to bail out Air Canada would be a
confirmation that the government is perpetuating 19th century, family compact,
upper and lower Canada policies.
As a western Canadian I am extremely proud that a
strong air carrier has emerged in the west, a company called WestJet. It has
continued to increase revenues and profits even with this downturn. It has
raised its financing from private investors. It has not been in the pocket of
HRDC. It has not been knocking on the door of the department of industry and
commerce. It has won its customers from a giant, bloated, government protected
monopoly by giving customers a superior product at more attractive
prices.
I will illustrate that with one example. Three weeks
ago I flew by Air Canada to Ottawa via Toronto on a hospitality charge seat of
$1,044. With the crisis on I was discouraged from flying with Air Canada, so I
tried the competitor, WestJet, direct from Saskatoon to Ottawa at a fare of
$444, a net saving for the taxpayer of $600. I was surprised that in the rider
service the government is engaged in we almost have to fight with those people
to get a ticket with WestJet.
What is the solution? Air Canada is sinking under its
own weight. It is a product of government protection. This is not a time for
its pals in Ottawa to bail it out. It is a time for policy makers to back off
and let the market sort it out.
Another solution is to bring transportation under the
umbrella of the free trade agreement and let our companies fully participate in
the North American economy, like we do in most other sectors. One minor benefit
we might get out of that is that customers in this country might get the
benefits of competition and some real choice.
(1410)
There is a point I would like to emphasize. This family
compact thing is well entrenched in this part of the world, but where I come
from we are sick and tired of family compact arrangements.
In conclusion, I encourage our government to reverse
this decade of decline and neglect in terms of investing in our military and
our national security. I urge the government to seriously pursue a
harmonization approach with our American friends and allies in terms of
immigration and refugee policy. We are in a time of war and things have to
change, but if we want to preserve our national, economic and social security
we will have to change the way we do things. The old practices will not work.
Something that I really find offensive in this whole
debate is the argument that a balanced, moderate way of dealing with terrorism
will be used. I have heard that term a lot. I wonder if Churchill, Roosevelt
and the allies said they would use a balanced, moderate approach to fighting
Hitler. That is nonsense. We have an evil force here and this is not the time
for some balanced, moderate approach. We are not talking about some social
policy in Canada. We are talking about a very evil force that is out to destroy
western civilization as we know it.
This is the time to take a stand with the president of
the United States, decisively. I am really disappointed that our Prime Minister
was not sitting in the house of representatives side by side with Mr. Blair
last night. As a Canadian I found it embarrassing.
(1415)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I have just a short comment and then a
question for my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance.
Earlier we heard from one of his colleagues in a
presentation to the House in which he talked about the $90 billion plus net
trade surplus that Canada enjoys with our neighbour to the south and how
important that is. Certainly that is one of the reasons why I do support free
trade and why I think most Canadians have seen the benefits of free trade.
However there are obviously some problems with NAFTA
and with free trade with our American neighbours. Given some of the problems
with Bill S-23, in that, as was stated earlier, without reciprocal legislation
from the Americans to allow easier access to their market by our corporations
and producers, we could see yet a greater impact on that trade surplus we enjoy
today and which is of such tremendous benefit to our Canadian economy.
Problems have developed at our borders, with much
justification I might add, given the tragic and terrible events of last week.
Nevertheless, given the problems that we have seen over this past week at the
borders, why would we move at this particular time to allow easier access to
importing goods from the United States when U.S. intentions are obvious? There
are some very real reasons why it is being forced to heighten its security at
the borders, and of course that does damage to our exports.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on why we
would proceed at this time without a commitment from the Americans to bring
forward comparable legislation in the United States.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick:
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.
There are many aspects to it. The events that have
occurred recently are changing the way things are being done. We are in a state
of war. Many people do not understand that. If they watched the president of
the United States last night delivering his address, it was a wartime speech.
We are not going to be immune from it. It is global. And the president said,
“You are either with us or you are against us”.
That is my point of view. The timid response this week
by the government in this whole area bothers me. The United States is going to
change its policies. It is in a state of war. Business as usual is not going to
carry on. Maybe the Americans had some sort of agreement where they would
reciprocate on this issue, but until we get our house in order in terms of
immigration and refugee policies, they will be difficult to deal with at the
borders. It is as simple as that and I do not blame them.
There is something we have to understand. I do not know
all the statistics on it, however, some 40% of our GDP or something in that
region is based on trade with our American friends. This is very disturbing to
me because if we lose a substantial portion of that, the government should
realize what that equates to. It means unemployment, increased spending on
social programs and real strains on employment programs.
I can see four or five ministers in the House right now
and we could basically trim their departments right down to nothing in this
situation in the interests of getting national, social and economic security in
place and protecting it. However, the government is just doing things the same
old way. It does not seem to think there is a war or a problem, but that it is
someone else's problem. I know it is not someone else's problem. This is a
world problem and we had better wake up.
I just thought of one example that would hit the nail
on the head. We mentioned Honda and other ones. I was thinking of Magna
International, one of the world's largest auto parts producers. I am quite sure
many plants in Ontario produce parts that flow into the United States from this
just in time inventory system. With the borders being clogged and jammed by
American security interests, how long is that going to last? Assembly plants in
the U.S. are not going to use our plants as suppliers if they cannot get the
parts.
We have to bring this issue into perspective. It is
more than just national security. It is social security and it is economic
security. If we are not here trying to enhance all three of these things, I
really wonder what we are doing in this place.
(1420)
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Prince
Albert recognized the importance of Canadian economics and trade.
May I point out that Bill S-23 not only expedites
business and increased trade, it also tries to increase security at the border.
We all know there is such a blockage now recently after the tragedy. We have to
respond quickly to try to improve the situation without sacrificing our trade
and business, and in the meantime provide protection for Canadians and
Americans.
We all recognize how important Bill S-23 is. We need to
put that in action as soon as we can. I wonder why the hon. member and his
party cannot just simply say that this is a good bill and that they will try to
support it.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick:
Madam Speaker, I will reiterate my point. The events
that have taken place have been so extraordinary that the policy directives we
might have had six months or a year ago will be dramatically changed.
I want to be very emphatic with the government. Ressam
was headed for Los Angeles bent on doing the same sort of things that happened
in New York. The American people apprehended him. Because of our politically
correct refugee system, the man lived in our country for six years. The
Algerians wanted him because they knew how dangerous he was. My understanding
was that we could not send him back because the Algerians may have done
something that we might have found offensive in dealing with terrorists. Canada
let him go back to Afghanistan for two years while he was waiting here in
limbo. We even allowed him to change his name. This is not an isolated case.
The king of Jordan has pointed out seven or eight of Ressam's
teammates.
I have a problem with the harmonization of our refugee
and immigration system. It seems to me that the government has permitted one
province to build a firewall and build its own immigration system within the
country. I am not exactly sure how that will all fit into the equation if it
becomes necessary but it is another sign of decay and decline on the part of
the leadership of the government.
That is not the end of it. Interpol's most wanted
criminal came back and forth to Canada about 17 times and nobody bothered him.
We could not even ask his wife whether she had a husband because the minister
of immigration found that offensive and sexist.
The Tamil tigers have something like 40 countries in
which they could seek asylum but they like our country. We have that warm, cozy
feeling here and once they are here they are pretty safe.
The Americans know these things. I would be really
surprised if anyone on the government side did not know that American
officials, whether it is the ambassador or whoever, are concerned about the
security in our country. It will impact on our border. If they had confidence
in our external border system it would eliminate a lot of problems on our
internal border. It would be more like the European situation. For years people
on the government side and I think my NDP friends have emphasized that we
should be doing what Europe does.
Countries in Europe do have very tight perimeters. As
much as business is being done inside countries, things move around pretty
freely, including labour. Maybe we should be looking at enhancing these same
things.
(1425)
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Prime Minister, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I realize there are just a few minutes
left but I would like to make some comments in reference to the speech we just
heard. I listened intently to the member's speech. He made a lot of good
points.
If the hon. member was concerned about a potential
response by the government to Air Canada, I would suggest that he have a chat
with his own transport critic. I was taken aback by the quick stand that was
taken, and then a 180 was done a day later.
Clearly the market forces are probably one of the
solutions we have to give serious attention to, or if we are going to
compensate businesses for costs incurred through this crisis, we have to look
at compensating all businesses. I do not think we can pick one over
another.
I listened quite intently to the debate. There are a
number of issues.
There has been talk about perimeter and harmonization.
The bill deals with uses of various technologies--and this has been the subject
of ridicule, given the events that happened--to speed up things like
pre-clearance, things like going through one detailed security clearance
process and getting either a visa or some sort of instrument that allows people
to pass freely if they commute back and forth, things like that. These things
have been discussed. I remember having discussions with Congressman Lamar Smith
four years ago on these.
Clearly if they do not have confidence in the
perimeter, they are not going to go ahead with these processes. That goes
without saying.
On the issue of the common perimeter, let us not kid
ourselves. Harmonization means Canada going to American rules. Then the member
says that is not an issue, that there is no downside to that. We are two
separate countries. Clearly this sovereignty versus security argument is a very
false dichotomy. We do not need to put it in those terms because what I am
hearing from various members is that there is a price for sovereignty. The
member from Peace River mentioned $90 billion. The economic impact is $90
billion so sovereignty was pushed aside.
We have to give this some thought. We absolutely have
to look at the perimeter argument. However I think the better way to approach
it is to say what are our objectives are. We do not want undesirables in our
country.
I would remind members that with respect to the crisis
that we are dealing with now, 16 of the 19, and it is undecided on two others,
did not slip through some porous bed and breakfast called Canada. They walked
in the front door of the U.S. with legal visas and their actual ID. Perhaps all
western countries were asleep at the switch on this issue, or the events as
they unfolded redefined or shifted the paradigm a little on us. But to stand
here and somehow claim that Canada was responsible, this was the most planned
terrorist attack in the history of the worlds. If the preferred route was
Canada, they would have used it. We have very little evidence of that. I am not
saying that some of these people may not have spent some time in Canada, but
they slipped by American authorities too. Therefore I do not think it is a time
to be pointing fingers. I think it is a time to be directing our energies at
solutions.
(1430)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until
Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)
APPENDIX
Alphabetical List of Members with their
Constituencies, Province of Constituency
and Political Affiliations;
Committees of the House,
the Ministry and Parliamentary Secretary
Chair Occupants
Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the
Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
Board Of Internal Economy
Hon. Peter Milliken
Hon. Don Boudria
Hon. Andy Mitchell
Mr. Bill Blaikie
Ms. Marlene Catterall
Mr. Bob Kilger
Mr. Peter MacKay
Mr. Jacques Saada
Mr. John Reynolds
Mr. Pierre Brien
Mr. Richard Harris
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Province of Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
British Columbia |
CA |
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
Alberta |
CA |
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
Alberta |
CA |
Anderson, David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
Quebec |
BQ |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
Quebec |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Yukon |
Lib. |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Baker, George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
Alberta |
CA |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Blondin-Andrew, Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Northwest Territories |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Boudria, Don, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
Quebec |
BQ |
Bradshaw, Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
Quebec |
BQ |
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
British Columbia |
CA |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Caccia, Charles |
Davenport |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Caplan, Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
Thornhill |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
Quebec |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
Alberta |
CA |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Martin, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
Outremont |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
Alberta |
CA |
Chrétien, Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Clark, Joe |
Calgary Centre |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Coderre, Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Collenette, David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
Ontario |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Copps, Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
Quebec |
BQ |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
Quebec |
BQ |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
British Columbia |
CA |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
Quebec |
BQ |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Dhaliwal, Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Dion, Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
Quebec |
BQ |
Duhamel, Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of
State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
British Columbia |
CA |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
Alberta |
CA |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development |
Laval West |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
British Columbia |
CA |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
Quebec |
BQ |
Fry, Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Gagliano, Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
Quebec |
BQ |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
Ontario |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
Quebec |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
Quebec |
BQ |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
New Brunswick |
NDP |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
Alberta |
CA |
Goodale, Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
British Columbia |
CA |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Gray, Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
British Columbia |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
Alberta |
PC/DR |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
Quebec |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
Quebec |
BQ |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
British Columbia |
CA |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
Newfoundland |
PC/DR |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
Alberta |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
Manitoba |
CA |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
British Columbia |
CA |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
Alberta |
CA |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
Alberta |
CA |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
Alberta |
CA |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kilgour, David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Alberta |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
Quebec |
BQ |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Saskatchewan |
Lib. |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
Quebec |
BQ |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
Quebec |
BQ |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
British Columbia |
CA |
MacAulay, Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
Nova Scotia |
PC/DR |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
Quebec |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
Manitoba |
PC/DR |
Marleau, Diane |
Sudbury |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
British Columbia |
CA |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Martin, Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
British Columbia |
CA |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Ontario |
Lib. |
McLellan, Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada |
Edmonton West |
Alberta |
Lib. |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
Quebec |
BQ |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
Alberta |
CA |
Milliken, Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
Alberta |
CA |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Minna, Maria, Minister for International Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal
Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
British Columbia |
CA |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Prince Edward Island |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Nault, Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Normand, Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Ontario |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
Alberta |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
British Columbia |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Manitoba |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
Manitoba |
CA |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
Saskatchewan |
PC/DR |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
Quebec |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
Alberta |
CA |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
Quebec |
BQ |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
British Columbia |
CA |
Peterson, Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pettigrew, Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
Quebec |
BQ |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
Saskatchewan |
NDP |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
Alberta |
CA |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
Ontario |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
British Columbia |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Robillard, Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
British Columbia |
NDP |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
Quebec |
BQ |
Rock, Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
Quebec |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
Quebec |
BQ |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
British Columbia |
CA |
Scott, Andy |
Fredericton |
New Brunswick |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
Alberta |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
Alberta |
CA |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
Quebec |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Quebec |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stewart, Jane, Minister of Human Resources Development |
Brant |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
British Columbia |
CA |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
Nova Scotia |
NDP |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
British Columbia |
PC/DR |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Thibault, Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Nova Scotia |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Quebec |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
Alberta |
CA |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tobin, Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Newfoundland |
Lib. |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
Manitoba |
CA |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
Quebec |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
Quebec |
BQ |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
Quebec |
BQ |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
Manitoba |
NDP |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
New Brunswick |
PC/DR |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Ontario |
Lib. |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
British Columbia |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
British Columbia |
CA |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
Alberta |
CA |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Ontario |
Lib. |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
Saskatchewan |
CA |
Alphabetical list of Members of the House of Commons by
Province
First Session--Thirty Seventh Parliament
Name of Member |
Constituency |
Political Affiliation |
Alberta (26)
|
Ablonczy, Diane |
Calgary--Nose Hill |
CA |
Anders, Rob |
Calgary West |
CA |
Benoit, Leon |
Lakeland |
CA |
Casson, Rick |
Lethbridge |
CA |
Chatters, David |
Athabasca |
CA |
Clark, Joe |
Calgary Centre |
PC/DR |
Epp, Ken |
Elk Island |
CA |
Goldring, Peter |
Edmonton Centre-East |
CA |
Grey, Deborah |
Edmonton North |
PC/DR |
Hanger, Art |
Calgary Northeast |
CA |
Hill, Grant |
Macleod |
CA |
Jaffer, Rahim |
Edmonton--Strathcona |
CA |
Johnston, Dale |
Wetaskiwin |
CA |
Kenney, Jason |
Calgary Southeast |
CA |
Kilgour, David, Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa) |
Edmonton Southeast |
Lib. |
Manning, Preston |
Calgary Southwest |
CA |
McLellan, Anne, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada |
Edmonton West |
Lib. |
Merrifield, Rob |
Yellowhead |
CA |
Mills, Bob |
Red Deer |
CA |
Obhrai, Deepak |
Calgary East |
CA |
Penson, Charlie |
Peace River |
CA |
Rajotte, James |
Edmonton Southwest |
CA |
Solberg, Monte |
Medicine Hat |
CA |
Sorenson, Kevin |
Crowfoot |
CA |
Thompson, Myron |
Wild Rose |
CA |
Williams, John |
St. Albert |
CA |
British Columbia (34)
|
Abbott, Jim |
Kootenay--Columbia |
CA |
Anderson, David, Minister of the Environment |
Victoria |
Lib. |
Burton, Andy |
Skeena |
CA |
Cadman, Chuck |
Surrey North |
CA |
Cummins, John |
Delta--South Richmond |
CA |
Davies, Libby |
Vancouver East |
NDP |
Day, Stockwell, Leader of the Opposition |
Okanagan--Coquihalla |
CA |
Dhaliwal, Herb, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans |
Vancouver South--Burnaby |
Lib. |
Duncan, John |
Vancouver Island North |
CA |
Elley, Reed |
Nanaimo--Cowichan |
CA |
Forseth, Paul |
New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby |
CA |
Fry, Hedy, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women) |
Vancouver Centre |
Lib. |
Gouk, Jim |
Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan |
CA |
Grewal, Gurmant |
Surrey Central |
CA |
Harris, Richard |
Prince George--Bulkley Valley |
CA |
Hill, Jay |
Prince George--Peace River |
PC/DR |
Hinton, Betty |
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys |
CA |
Leung, Sophia, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue |
Vancouver Kingsway |
Lib. |
Lunn, Gary |
Saanich--Gulf Islands |
PC/DR |
Lunney, James |
Nanaimo--Alberni |
CA |
Martin, Keith |
Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca |
CA |
Mayfield, Philip |
Cariboo--Chilcotin |
CA |
McNally, Grant |
Dewdney--Alouette |
PC/DR |
Meredith, Val |
South Surrey--White Rock--Langley |
PC/DR |
Moore, James |
Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam |
CA |
Owen, Stephen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada |
Vancouver Quadra |
Lib. |
Peschisolido, Joe |
Richmond |
CA |
Reynolds, John |
West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast |
CA |
Robinson, Svend |
Burnaby--Douglas |
NDP |
Schmidt, Werner |
Kelowna |
CA |
Stinson, Darrel |
Okanagan--Shuswap |
CA |
Strahl, Chuck |
Fraser Valley |
PC/DR |
White, Randy |
Langley--Abbotsford |
CA |
White, Ted |
North Vancouver |
CA |
Manitoba (14)
|
Alcock, Reg |
Winnipeg South |
Lib. |
Blaikie, Bill |
Winnipeg--Transcona |
NDP |
Borotsik, Rick |
Brandon--Souris |
PC/DR |
Desjarlais, Bev |
Churchill |
NDP |
Duhamel, Ronald, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of
State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Saint Boniface |
Lib. |
Harvard, John |
Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia |
Lib. |
Hilstrom, Howard |
Selkirk--Interlake |
CA |
Mark, Inky |
Dauphin--Swan River |
PC/DR |
Martin, Pat |
Winnipeg Centre |
NDP |
Neville, Anita |
Winnipeg South Centre |
Lib. |
Pagtakhan, Rey, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific) |
Winnipeg North--St. Paul |
Lib. |
Pallister, Brian |
Portage--Lisgar |
CA |
Toews, Vic |
Provencher |
CA |
Wasylycia-Leis, Judy |
Winnipeg North Centre |
NDP |
New Brunswick (10)
|
Bradshaw, Claudette, Minister of Labour |
Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe |
Lib. |
Castonguay, Jeannot, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health |
Madawaska--Restigouche |
Lib. |
Godin, Yvon |
Acadie--Bathurst |
NDP |
Herron, John |
Fundy--Royal |
PC/DR |
Hubbard, Charles |
Miramichi |
Lib. |
LeBlanc, Dominic |
Beauséjour--Petitcodiac |
Lib. |
Savoy, Andy |
Tobique--Mactaquac |
Lib. |
Scott, Andy |
Fredericton |
Lib. |
Thompson, Greg |
New Brunswick Southwest |
PC/DR |
Wayne, Elsie |
Saint John |
PC/DR |
Newfoundland (7)
|
Baker, George |
Gander--Grand Falls |
Lib. |
Byrne, Gerry |
Humber--St. Barbe--Baie Verte |
Lib. |
Doyle, Norman |
St. John's East |
PC/DR |
Hearn, Loyola |
St. John's West |
PC/DR |
Matthews, Bill, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs |
Burin--St. George's |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Lawrence |
Labrador |
Lib. |
Tobin, Brian, Minister of Industry |
Bonavista--Trinity--Conception |
Lib. |
Northwest Territories (1)
|
Blondin-Andrew, Ethel, Secretary of State (Children and
Youth) |
Western Arctic |
Lib. |
Nova Scotia (11)
|
Brison, Scott |
Kings--Hants |
PC/DR |
Casey, Bill |
Cumberland--Colchester |
PC/DR |
Cuzner, Rodger |
Bras d'Or--Cape Breton |
Lib. |
Eyking, Mark |
Sydney--Victoria |
Lib. |
Keddy, Gerald |
South Shore |
PC/DR |
Lill, Wendy |
Dartmouth |
NDP |
MacKay, Peter |
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough |
PC/DR |
McDonough, Alexa |
Halifax |
NDP |
Regan, Geoff, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons |
Halifax West |
Lib. |
Stoffer, Peter |
Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern
Shore |
NDP |
Thibault, Robert, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency) |
West Nova |
Lib. |
Nunavut (1)
|
Karetak-Lindell, Nancy |
Nunavut |
Lib. |
Ontario (103)
|
Adams, Peter |
Peterborough |
Lib. |
Assadourian, Sarkis |
Brampton Centre |
Lib. |
Augustine, Jean |
Etobicoke--Lakeshore |
Lib. |
Barnes, Sue |
London West |
Lib. |
Beaumier, Colleen |
Brampton West--Mississauga |
Lib. |
Bélair, Réginald |
Timmins--James Bay |
Lib. |
Bélanger, Mauril |
Ottawa--Vanier |
Lib. |
Bellemare, Eugène |
Ottawa--Orléans |
Lib. |
Bennett, Carolyn |
St. Paul's |
Lib. |
Bevilacqua, Maurizio |
Vaughan--King--Aurora |
Lib. |
Bonin, Ray |
Nickel Belt |
Lib. |
Bonwick, Paul |
Simcoe--Grey |
Lib. |
Boudria, Don, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Glengarry--Prescott--Russell |
Lib. |
Brown, Bonnie |
Oakville |
Lib. |
Bryden, John |
Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot |
Lib. |
Bulte, Sarmite, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage |
Parkdale--High Park |
Lib. |
Caccia, Charles |
Davenport |
Lib. |
Calder, Murray |
Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey |
Lib. |
Cannis, John |
Scarborough Centre |
Lib. |
Caplan, Elinor, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
Thornhill |
Lib. |
Carroll, Aileen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs |
Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford |
Lib. |
Catterall, Marlene |
Ottawa West--Nepean |
Lib. |
Chamberlain, Brenda |
Guelph--Wellington |
Lib. |
Collenette, David, Minister of Transport |
Don Valley East |
Lib. |
Comartin, Joe |
Windsor--St. Clair |
NDP |
Comuzzi, Joe |
Thunder Bay--Superior North |
Lib. |
Copps, Sheila, Minister of Canadian Heritage |
Hamilton East |
Lib. |
Cullen, Roy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
DeVillers, Paul |
Simcoe North |
Lib. |
Dromisky, Stan |
Thunder Bay--Atikokan |
Lib. |
Eggleton, Art, Minister of National Defence |
York Centre |
Lib. |
Finlay, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Nothern Development |
Oxford |
Lib. |
Fontana, Joe |
London North Centre |
Lib. |
Gallant, Cheryl |
Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke |
CA |
Gallaway, Roger |
Sarnia--Lambton |
Lib. |
Godfrey, John |
Don Valley West |
Lib. |
Graham, Bill |
Toronto Centre--Rosedale |
Lib. |
Gray, Herb, Deputy Prime Minister |
Windsor West |
Lib. |
Grose, Ivan |
Oshawa |
Lib. |
Guarnieri, Albina |
Mississauga East |
Lib. |
Harb, Mac |
Ottawa Centre |
Lib. |
Ianno, Tony |
Trinity--Spadina |
Lib. |
Jackson, Ovid |
Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound |
Lib. |
Jordan, Joe, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime
Minister |
Leeds--Grenville |
Lib. |
Karygiannis, Jim |
Scarborough--Agincourt |
Lib. |
Keyes, Stan |
Hamilton West |
Lib. |
Kilger, Bob |
Stormont--Dundas--Charlottenburgh |
Lib. |
Knutson, Gar |
Elgin--Middlesex--London |
Lib. |
Kraft Sloan, Karen |
York North |
Lib. |
Lastewka, Walt |
St. Catharines |
Lib. |
Lee, Derek |
Scarborough--Rouge River |
Lib. |
Longfield, Judi |
Whitby--Ajax |
Lib. |
Macklin, Paul Harold |
Northumberland |
Lib. |
Mahoney, Steve |
Mississauga West |
Lib. |
Malhi, Gurbax, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour |
Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale |
Lib. |
Maloney, John |
Erie--Lincoln |
Lib. |
Marleau, Diane |
Sudbury |
Lib. |
McCallum, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance |
Markham |
Lib. |
McCormick, Larry, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and
Addington |
Lib. |
McKay, John |
Scarborough East |
Lib. |
McTeague, Dan |
Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge |
Lib. |
Milliken, Peter |
Kingston and the Islands |
Lib. |
Mills, Dennis |
Toronto--Danforth |
Lib. |
Minna, Maria, Minister for International Cooperation |
Beaches--East York |
Lib. |
Mitchell, Andy, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal
Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) |
Parry Sound--Muskoka |
Lib. |
Myers, Lynn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
of Canada |
Waterloo--Wellington |
Lib. |
Nault, Robert, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development |
Kenora--Rainy River |
Lib. |
O'Brien, Pat, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
International Trade |
London--Fanshawe |
Lib. |
O'Reilly, John, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Defence |
Haliburton--Victoria--Brock |
Lib. |
Parrish, Carolyn |
Mississauga Centre |
Lib. |
Peric, Janko |
Cambridge |
Lib. |
Peterson, Jim, Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions) |
Willowdale |
Lib. |
Phinney, Beth |
Hamilton Mountain |
Lib. |
Pickard, Jerry |
Chatham--Kent Essex |
Lib. |
Pillitteri, Gary |
Niagara Falls |
Lib. |
Pratt, David |
Nepean--Carleton |
Lib. |
Provenzano, Carmen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Veterans Affairs |
Sault Ste. Marie |
Lib. |
Redman, Karen, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment |
Kitchener Centre |
Lib. |
Reed, Julian |
Halton |
Lib. |
Reid, Scott |
Lanark--Carleton |
CA |
Richardson, John |
Perth--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Rock, Allan, Minister of Health |
Etobicoke Centre |
Lib. |
Serré, Benoît, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources |
Timiskaming--Cochrane |
Lib. |
Sgro, Judy |
York West |
Lib. |
Shepherd, Alex, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the
Treasury Board |
Durham |
Lib. |
Speller, Bob |
Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant |
Lib. |
St. Denis, Brent |
Algoma--Manitoulin |
Lib. |
Steckle, Paul |
Huron--Bruce |
Lib. |
Stewart, Jane, Minister of Human Resources Development |
Brant |
Lib. |
Szabo, Paul, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services |
Mississauga South |
Lib. |
Telegdi, Andrew |
Kitchener--Waterloo |
Lib. |
Tirabassi, Tony |
Niagara Centre |
Lib. |
Tonks, Alan |
York South--Weston |
Lib. |
Torsney, Paddy |
Burlington |
Lib. |
Ur, Rose-Marie |
Lambton--Kent--Middlesex |
Lib. |
Valeri, Tony |
Stoney Creek |
Lib. |
Vanclief, Lyle, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food |
Prince Edward--Hastings |
Lib. |
Volpe, Joseph |
Eglinton--Lawrence |
Lib. |
Wappel, Tom |
Scarborough Southwest |
Lib. |
Whelan, Susan |
Essex |
Lib. |
Wilfert, Bryon |
Oak Ridges |
Lib. |
Wood, Bob |
Nipissing |
Lib. |
Prince Edward Island (4)
|
Easter, Wayne |
Malpeque |
Lib. |
MacAulay, Lawrence, Solicitor General of Canada |
Cardigan |
Lib. |
McGuire, Joe |
Egmont |
Lib. |
Murphy, Shawn |
Hillsborough |
Lib. |
Quebec (75)
|
Allard, Carole-Marie |
Laval East |
Lib. |
Assad, Mark, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration |
Gatineau |
Lib. |
Asselin, Gérard |
Charlevoix |
BQ |
Bachand, André |
Richmond--Arthabaska |
PC/DR |
Bachand, Claude |
Saint-Jean |
BQ |
Bakopanos, Eleni |
Ahuntsic |
Lib. |
Bellehumeur, Michel |
Berthier--Montcalm |
BQ |
Bergeron, Stéphane |
Verchères--Les-Patriotes |
BQ |
Bertrand, Robert |
Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle |
Lib. |
Bigras, Bernard |
Rosemont--Petite-Patrie |
BQ |
Binet, Gérard |
Frontenac--Mégantic |
Lib. |
Bourgeois, Diane |
Terrebonne--Blainville |
BQ |
Brien, Pierre |
Témiscamingue |
BQ |
Cardin, Serge |
Sherbrooke |
BQ |
Carignan, Jean-Guy |
Québec East |
Lib. |
Cauchon, Martin, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of
State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
Outremont |
Lib. |
Charbonneau, Yvon |
Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies |
Lib. |
Chrétien, Jean, Prime Minister of Canada |
Saint-Maurice |
Lib. |
Coderre, Denis, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) |
Bourassa |
Lib. |
Cotler, Irwin |
Mount Royal |
Lib. |
Crête, Paul |
Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les
Basques |
BQ |
Dalphond-Guiral, Madeleine |
Laval Centre |
BQ |
Desrochers, Odina |
Lotbinière-L'Érable |
BQ |
Dion, Stéphane, President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Saint-Laurent--Cartierville |
Lib. |
Discepola, Nick |
Vaudreuil--Soulanges |
Lib. |
Drouin, Claude, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Industry |
Beauce |
Lib. |
Dubé, Antoine |
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière |
BQ |
Duceppe, Gilles |
Laurier--Sainte-Marie |
BQ |
Duplain, Claude |
Portneuf |
Lib. |
Farrah, Georges, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans |
Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok |
Lib. |
Folco, Raymonde, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development |
Laval West |
Lib. |
Fournier, Ghislain |
Manicouagan |
BQ |
Gagliano, Alfonso, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services |
Saint-Léonard--Saint-Michel |
Lib. |
Gagnon, Christiane |
Québec |
BQ |
Gagnon, Marcel |
Champlain |
BQ |
Gauthier, Michel |
Roberval |
BQ |
Girard-Bujold, Jocelyne |
Jonquière |
BQ |
Guay, Monique |
Laurentides |
BQ |
Guimond, Michel |
Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans |
BQ |
Harvey, André, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport |
Chicoutimi--Le Fjord |
Lib. |
Jennings, Marlene, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine |
Lib. |
Laframboise, Mario |
Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel |
BQ |
Lalonde, Francine |
Mercier |
BQ |
Lanctôt, Robert |
Châteauguay |
BQ |
Lavigne, Raymond |
Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe
Saint-Charles |
Lib. |
Lebel, Ghislain |
Chambly |
BQ |
Lincoln, Clifford |
Lac-Saint-Louis |
Lib. |
Loubier, Yvan |
Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot |
BQ |
Marceau, Richard |
Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier |
BQ |
Marcil, Serge |
Beauharnois--Salaberry |
Lib. |
Martin, Paul, Minister of Finance |
LaSalle--Émard |
Lib. |
Ménard, Réal |
Hochelaga--Maisonneuve |
BQ |
Normand, Gilbert, Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) |
Bellechasse--Etchemins--Montmagny--L'Islet |
Lib. |
Paquette, Pierre |
Joliette |
BQ |
Paradis, Denis |
Brome--Missisquoi |
Lib. |
Patry, Bernard |
Pierrefonds--Dollard |
Lib. |
Perron, Gilles-A. |
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles |
BQ |
Pettigrew, Pierre, Minister for International Trade |
Papineau--Saint-Denis |
Lib. |
Picard, Pauline |
Drummond |
BQ |
Plamondon, Louis |
Bas-Richelieu--Nicolet--Bécancour |
BQ |
Price, David |
Compton--Stanstead |
Lib. |
Proulx, Marcel |
Hull--Aylmer |
Lib. |
Robillard, Lucienne, President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Westmount--Ville-Marie |
Lib. |
Rocheleau, Yves |
Trois-Rivières |
BQ |
Roy, Jean-Yves |
Matapédia--Matane |
BQ |
Saada, Jacques |
Brossard--La Prairie |
Lib. |
Sauvageau, Benoît |
Repentigny |
BQ |
Scherrer, Hélène |
Louis-Hébert |
Lib. |
St-Hilaire, Caroline |
Longueuil |
BQ |
St-Jacques, Diane |
Shefford |
Lib. |
St-Julien, Guy |
Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik |
Lib. |
Thibeault, Yolande |
Saint-Lambert |
Lib. |
Tremblay, Stéphan |
Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay |
BQ |
Tremblay, Suzanne |
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis |
BQ |
Venne, Pierrette |
Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert |
BQ |
Saskatchewan (14)
|
Anderson, David |
Cypress Hills--Grasslands |
CA |
Bailey, Roy |
Souris--Moose Mountain |
CA |
Breitkreuz, Garry |
Yorkton--Melville |
CA |
Fitzpatrick, Brian |
Prince Albert |
CA |
Goodale, Ralph, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Wascana |
Lib. |
Laliberte, Rick |
Churchill River |
Lib. |
Nystrom, Lorne |
Regina--Qu'Appelle |
NDP |
Pankiw, Jim |
Saskatoon--Humboldt |
PC/DR |
Proctor, Dick |
Palliser |
NDP |
Ritz, Gerry |
Battlefords--Lloydminster |
CA |
Skelton, Carol |
Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar |
CA |
Spencer, Larry |
Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre |
CA |
Vellacott, Maurice |
Saskatoon--Wanuskewin |
CA |
Yelich, Lynne |
Blackstrap |
CA |
Yukon (1)
|
Bagnell, Larry |
Yukon |
Lib. |
LIST OF STANDING AND SUB-COMMITTEES
(As of September 21, 2001 — 1st Session, 37th
Parliament)
Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural
Resources
|
Chair: Nancy Karetak-Lindell
|
Vice-Chairs: John Godfrey
Maurice Vellacott
|
Larry Bagnell
Gérard Binet
Serge Cardin
Jean-Guy Carignan
David Chatters
Rodger Cuzner
Reed Elley
John Finlay
Gerald Keddy
Richard Marceau
Pat Martin
Benoît Serré
Guy St-Julien
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
John Duncan
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
Chair: Charles Hubbard
|
Vice-Chairs: Murray Calder
Howard Hilstrom
|
David Anderson
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Claude Duplain
Mark Eyking
Marcel Gagnon
Rick Laliberte
Larry McCormick
Dick Proctor
Bob Speller
Paul Steckle
Suzanne Tremblay
Rose-Marie Ur
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Peter Adams
Rob Anders
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Comartin
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
John Duncan
Wayne Easter
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gerald Keddy
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Paul Harold Macklin
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Citizenship and Immigration
|
Chair: Joe Fontana
|
Vice-Chairs: Inky Mark
John McCallum
|
Mark Assad
Jean Augustine
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Joe Fontana
Gurmant Grewal
John Herron
Steve Mahoney
Gurbax Malhi
John McCallum
Anita Neville
Jerry Pickard
Yolande Thibeault
Stéphan Tremblay
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Lynne Yelich
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Dale Johnston
Francine Lalonde
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
|
Environment and Sustainable Development
|
Chair: Charles Caccia
|
Vice-Chairs: Karen Kraft Sloan
Bob Mills
|
Bernard Bigras
Aileen Carroll
Joe Comartin
Paul Forseth
Marcel Gagnon
John Herron
Gar Knutson
Rick Laliberte
James Moore
Karen Redman
Julian Reed
Andy Savoy
Hélène Scherrer
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Peter Adams
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Clifford Lincoln
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Alan Tonks
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
Chair: Bill Graham
|
Vice-Chairs: Colleen Beaumier
Monte Solberg
|
Jean Augustine
George Baker
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
John Harvard
Stan Keyes
Francine Lalonde
Diane Marleau
Keith Martin
Pat O'Brien
Deepak Obhrai
Pierre Paquette
Denis Paradis
Bernard Patry
Svend Robinson
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Sarkis Assadourian
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Eugène Bellemare
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
David Chatters
Irwin Cotler
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Norman Doyle
Stan Dromisky
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Claude Duplain
Wayne Easter
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Mark Eyking
Brian Fitzpatrick
Raymonde Folco
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Mac Harb
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Beth Phinney
David Price
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Yves Rocheleau
Benoît Sauvageau
Hélène Scherrer
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Kevin Sorenson
Bob Speller
Larry Spencer
Diane St-Jacques
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Tony Valeri
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
|
Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and
Investment
|
Chair: Mac Harb
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
Mark Eyking
Pat O'Brien
Pierre Paquette
Svend Robinson
Bob Speller
Tony Valeri
Total: (9)
|
Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International
Development
|
Chair: Beth Phinney
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Sarkis Assadourian
Colleen Beaumier
Eugène Bellemare
Bill Casey
Irwin Cotler
Antoine Dubé
Deepak Obhrai
Svend Robinson
Total: (9)
|
Finance
|
Chair: Maurizio Bevilacqua
|
Vice-Chairs: Scott Brison
Nick Discepola
|
Sue Barnes
Carolyn Bennett
Maurizio Bevilacqua
Scott Brison
Roy Cullen
Nick Discepola
Ken Epp
Roger Gallaway
Albina Guarnieri
Richard Harris
Jason Kenney
Sophia Leung
Yvan Loubier
John McCallum
Lorne Nystrom
Joe Peschisolido
Pauline Picard
Gary Pillitteri
Total: (21)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
John Herron
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Charles Hubbard
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Alexa McDonough
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Gilles-A. Perron
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Guy St-Julien
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Fisheries and Oceans
|
Chair: Wayne Easter
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Sarkis Assadourian
John Cummins
John Cummins
John Duncan
Dominic LeBlanc
James Lunney
Bill Matthews
Bill Matthews
Lawrence O'Brien
Jean-Yves Roy
Guy St-Julien
Paul Steckle
Peter Stoffer
Suzanne Tremblay
Tom Wappel
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Rodger Cuzner
Stockwell Day
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Marcel Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Yves Rocheleau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Procedure and House Affairs
|
Chair: Derek Lee
|
Vice-Chairs: John Reynolds
Jacques Saada
|
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Marlene Catterall
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Michel Guimond
Richard Harris
Joe Jordan
Paul Harold Macklin
Carolyn Parrish
Geoff Regan
John Richardson
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Bill Blaikie
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Marcel Proulx
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Caroline St-Hilaire
Darrel Stinson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Parliamentary Calendar
|
Chair: Marlene Catterall
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Stéphane Bergeron
Rick Borotsik
Yvon Godin
John Reynolds
Total: (5)
|
Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business
|
Chair: Carolyn Parrish
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Bill Blaikie
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Michel Guimond
Marcel Proulx
Total: (6)
|
Health
|
Chair: Bonnie Brown
|
Vice-Chairs: Rob Merrifield
Judy Sgro
|
Diane Ablonczy
André Bachand
Ray Bonin
Diane Bourgeois
Jeannot Castonguay
Yvon Charbonneau
Stan Dromisky
James Lunney
Réal Ménard
Stephen Owen
Carolyn Parrish
Hélène Scherrer
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
Nick Discepola
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Pauline Picard
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Diane St-Jacques
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Greg Thompson
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Canadian Heritage
|
Chair: Clifford Lincoln
|
Vice-Chairs: Cheryl Gallant
Dennis Mills
|
Jim Abbott
Paul Bonwick
Sarmite Bulte
Rodger Cuzner
Christiane Gagnon
Gurmant Grewal
John Harvard
André Harvey
Loyola Hearn
Wendy Lill
Shawn Murphy
Caroline St-Hilaire
Bryon Wilfert
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
David Price
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Diane St-Jacques
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
|
Chair: Peter Adams
|
Vice-Chairs: Val Meredith
Diane St-Jacques
|
Jeannot Castonguay
Paul Crête
Libby Davies
Georges Farrah
Raymonde Folco
Jim Gouk
Monique Guay
Tony Ianno
Dale Johnston
Judi Longfield
Joe McGuire
Anita Neville
Carol Skelton
Greg Thompson
Alan Tonks
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Carolyn Bennett
Leon Benoit
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Stockwell Day
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Marcel Gagnon
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
John Godfrey
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Joe Jordan
Nancy Karetak-Lindell
Jason Kenney
Robert Lanctôt
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Larry McCormick
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Janko Peric
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Jean-Yves Roy
Werner Schmidt
Andy Scott
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Tony Tirabassi
Vic Toews
Stéphan Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Elsie Wayne
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Children and Youth at Risk
|
Chair: John Godfrey
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Roy Bailey
Libby Davies
Monique Guay
Anita Neville
Diane St-Jacques
Greg Thompson
Tony Tirabassi
Alan Tonks
Total: (9)
|
Sub-Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities
|
Chair: Carolyn Bennett
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Reed Elley
Robert Lanctôt
Wendy Lill
John Maloney
Janko Peric
Karen Redman
Greg Thompson
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (9)
|
Industry, Science and Technology
|
Chair: Susan Whelan
|
Vice-Chairs: Walt Lastewka
Charlie Penson
|
Reg Alcock
Mauril Bélanger
Pierre Brien
Scott Brison
John Cannis
Bev Desjarlais
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Marlene Jennings
Preston Manning
Dan McTeague
James Rajotte
Andy Savoy
Paddy Torsney
Total: (16)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Peter Adams
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
Antoine Dubé
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Yvon Godin
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Loyola Hearn
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Mario Laframboise
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Guy St-Julien
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Justice and Human Rights
|
Chairs: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral
Andy Scott
|
Vice-Chairs: Chuck Cadman
Ivan Grose
|
Carole-Marie Allard
Michel Bellehumeur
Bill Blaikie
Irwin Cotler
Paul DeVillers
Peter MacKay
John Maloney
Keith Martin
John McKay
Lynn Myers
Stephen Owen
Judy Sgro
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Vic Toews
Pierrette Venne
Total: (20)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
André Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Diane Bourgeois
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Jean-Guy Carignan
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Pierre Paquette
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Diane St-Jacques
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Liaison
|
Chair: Bill Graham
|
Vice-Chair: Susan Whelan
|
Peter Adams
Mauril Bélanger
Maurizio Bevilacqua
Bonnie Brown
Charles Caccia
Wayne Easter
Joe Fontana
Charles Hubbard
Ovid Jackson
Nancy Karetak-Lindell
Raymond Lavigne
Derek Lee
Clifford Lincoln
David Pratt
Werner Schmidt
Andy Scott
John Williams
Total: (19)
|
Budget Sub-Committee
|
Chair: Bill Graham
|
Vice-Chair:
|
Bonnie Brown
Wayne Easter
Clifford Lincoln
David Pratt
Susan Whelan
John Williams
Total: (7)
|
National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
Chair: David Pratt
|
Vice-Chairs: Peter Goldring
David Price
|
Claude Bachand
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Peter Goldring
Art Hanger
Judi Longfield
John O'Reilly
Janko Peric
Louis Plamondon
David Pratt
David Price
Carmen Provenzano
Geoff Regan
Peter Stoffer
Elsie Wayne
Bryon Wilfert
Bob Wood
Total: (20)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Leon Benoit
Rick Borotsik
Garry Breitkreuz
Pierre Brien
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Francine Lalonde
Wendy Lill
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Svend Robinson
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Public Accounts
|
Chair: John Williams
|
Vice-Chairs: Mac Harb
Marlene Jennings
|
Robert Bertrand
John Bryden
Gerry Byrne
Odina Desrochers
John Finlay
Sophia Leung
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Brian Pallister
Gilles-A. Perron
Joe Peschisolido
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Total: (17)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Leon Benoit
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Roy Cullen
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Bev Desjarlais
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
Lynne Yelich
|
Transport and Government Operations
|
Chair: Ovid Jackson
|
Vice-Chairs: Jay Hill
Marcel Proulx
|
Larry Bagnell
Andy Burton
Bev Desjarlais
Norman Doyle
Brian Fitzpatrick
Ovid Jackson
Mario Laframboise
Ghislain Lebel
Dominic LeBlanc
Serge Marcil
Marcel Proulx
Alex Shepherd
Brent St. Denis
Paul Szabo
Tony Tirabassi
Total: (18)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Reg Alcock
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Gérard Asselin
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Bernard Bigras
Garry Breitkreuz
Chuck Cadman
Serge Cardin
Bill Casey
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Paul Crête
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Odina Desrochers
John Duncan
Wayne Easter
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Paul Forseth
Ghislain Fournier
Christiane Gagnon
Cheryl Gallant
Jocelyne Girard-Bujold
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Monique Guay
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Rick Laliberte
Raymond Lavigne
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
John Maloney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Réal Ménard
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Dick Proctor
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Judy Sgro
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Guy St-Julien
Darrel Stinson
Peter Stoffer
Chuck Strahl
Yolande Thibeault
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Sub-Committee on Combating Corruption
|
Chair: John Williams
|
Vice-Chair:
|
John Bryden
Roy Cullen
Odina Desrochers
Marlene Jennings
Pat Martin
Philip Mayfield
Shawn Murphy
Alex Shepherd
Greg Thompson
Total: (10)
|
SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs
|
Chair: Paddy Torsney
|
Vice-Chairs: Carole-Marie Allard
Randy White
|
André Bachand
Bernard Bigras
Libby Davies
Mac Harb
Dominic LeBlanc
Derek Lee
Réal Ménard
Stephen Owen
Jacques Saada
Carol Skelton
Total: (13)
|
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEES
Official Languages
|
Joint Chairs: Mauril Bélanger
Shirley Maheu
|
Joint Vice-Chairs: Scott Reid
Yolande Thibeault
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable Senators
|
Representing the House of Commons:André Bachand
Gérald Beaudoin
Eugène Bellemare
Leon Benoit
Gérard Binet
Sarmite Bulte
Claude Drouin
Joan Fraser
Christiane Gagnon
Jean-Robert Gauthier
John Godfrey
Yvon Godin
Rahim Jaffer
Raymond Lavigne
Rose-Marie Losier-Cool
Dan McTeague
Jean-Claude Rivest
Benoît Sauvageau
Raymond Setlakwe
Total: (23)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Joe Comartin
John Cummins
Stockwell Day
Stéphane Dion
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Richard Marceau
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Lorne Nystrom
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
Louis Plamondon
James Rajotte
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Suzanne Tremblay
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Library of Parliament
|
Joint Chairs: John Bryden
Raymond Lavigne
|
Joint Vice-Chair: Carolyn Bennett
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable Senators
|
Representing the House of Commons:Gérald Beaudoin
Robert Bertrand
Rick Borotsik
Marlene Catterall
Brenda Chamberlain
Jane Marie Cordy
Marcel Gagnon
Grant Hill
Betty Hinton
Jim Karygiannis
Wendy Lill
Gurbax Malhi
Donald Oliver
Jerry Pickard
Louis Plamondon
Vivienne Poy
Jacques Saada
Darrel Stinson
Total: (21)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Leon Benoit
Garry Breitkreuz
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
John Cummins
Libby Davies
Stockwell Day
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Richard Harris
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Peter MacKay
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Jim Pankiw
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Benoît Sauvageau
Werner Schmidt
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Randy White
Ted White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Scrutiny of Regulations
|
Joint Chairs: Céline Hervieux-Payette
Werner Schmidt
|
Joint Vice-Chair: Tom Wappel
|
Representing the Senate:The Honourable Senators
|
Representing the House of Commons:Sue Barnes
Paul Bonwick
John Bryden
Jean-Guy Carignan
Joe Comuzzi
John Cummins
Sheila Finestone
Michel Guimond
Richard Harris
Noël Kinsella
Gar Knutson
Robert Lanctôt
Derek Lee
Paul Harold Macklin
Wilfred Moore
Lynn Myers
Pierre Claude Nolin
Lorne Nystrom
Greg Thompson
Ted White
Total: (23)
|
Associated Members
Jim Abbott
Diane Ablonczy
Rob Anders
David Anderson
Roy Bailey
Michel Bellehumeur
Leon Benoit
Garry Breitkreuz
Scott Brison
Andy Burton
Chuck Cadman
Rick Casson
David Chatters
Stockwell Day
John Duncan
Reed Elley
Ken Epp
Brian Fitzpatrick
Paul Forseth
Cheryl Gallant
Peter Goldring
Jim Gouk
Gurmant Grewal
Deborah Grey
Art Hanger
Grant Hill
Jay Hill
Howard Hilstrom
Betty Hinton
Rahim Jaffer
Dale Johnston
Jason Kenney
Ghislain Lebel
Gary Lunn
James Lunney
Preston Manning
Inky Mark
Keith Martin
Philip Mayfield
Grant McNally
Val Meredith
Rob Merrifield
Bob Mills
James Moore
Deepak Obhrai
Brian Pallister
Charlie Penson
Joe Peschisolido
James Rajotte
Scott Reid
John Reynolds
Gerry Ritz
Carol Skelton
Monte Solberg
Kevin Sorenson
Larry Spencer
Darrel Stinson
Chuck Strahl
Myron Thompson
Vic Toews
Maurice Vellacott
Pierrette Venne
Randy White
John Williams
Lynne Yelich
|
Panels of Chairman of Legislative Committees
The Speaker
Hon. Peter Milliken
The The Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of
the Whole
Mr. Bob Kilger
The Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole
Mr. Réginald Bélair
The Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the
Whole House
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos
THE MINISTRY
According to precedence
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
|
Prime Minister of
Canada |
Hon. Herb Gray |
|
Deputy Prime Minister |
Hon. David Collenette |
|
Minister of Transport |
Hon. David Anderson |
|
Minister of the
Environment |
Hon. Ralph Goodale |
|
Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board |
Hon. Brian Tobin |
|
Minister of Industry |
Hon. Sheila Copps |
|
Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Hon. John Manley |
|
Minister of Industry |
Hon. Paul Martin |
|
Minister of Finance |
Hon. Art Eggleton |
|
Minister of National
Defence |
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada |
Hon. Allan Rock |
|
Minister of Health |
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
|
Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
|
President of the Treasury
Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure |
Hon. Martin Cauchon |
|
Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of
Quebec) |
Hon. Jane Stewart |
|
Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Hon. Stéphane Dion |
|
President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs |
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
|
Minister for International
Trade |
Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
|
Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food |
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
|
Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
|
Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Francophonie) |
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
|
Minister of Labour |
Hon. Robert Nault |
|
Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development |
Hon. Maria Minna |
|
Minister for International
Cooperation |
Hon. Elinor Caplan |
|
Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |
Hon. Robert Thibault |
|
Minister of State (Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency) |
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
|
Secretary of State
(Children and Youth) |
Hon. Hedy Fry |
|
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women) |
Hon. David Kilgour |
|
Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa) |
Hon. Jim Peterson |
|
Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions) |
Hon. Andy Mitchell |
|
Secretary of State (Rural
Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern
Ontario) |
Hon. Gilbert Normand |
|
Secretary of State (Science,
Research and Development) |
Hon. Denis Coderre |
|
Secretary of State (Amateur
Sport) |
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
|
Secretary of State
(Asia-Pacific) |
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Mr. Joe Jordan |
|
to the Prime Minister |
Mr. André Harvey |
|
to the Minister of Transport |
Mrs. Karen Redman |
|
to the Minister of the
Environment |
Mr. Benoît Serré |
|
to the Minister of Natural
Resources |
Mr. Claude Drouin |
|
to the Minister of Industry |
Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
|
to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage |
Ms. Aileen Carroll |
|
to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs |
Mr. John McCallum |
|
to the Minister of Finance |
Mr. John O'Reilly |
|
to the Minister of National
Defence |
Mr. Stephen Owen |
|
to the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada |
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay |
|
to the Minister of
Health |
Mr. Lynn Myers |
|
to the Solicitor General of
Canada |
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
to the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services |
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
to the President of the Treasury
Board |
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
to the Minister of National
Revenue |
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
to the Minister of Human Resources
Development |
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
to the Minister of International
Trade |
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
to the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons |
Mr. Larry McCormick |
|
to the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food |
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans |
Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
|
to the Minister of Veterans
Affairs |
Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
|
to the Minister of Labour |
Mr. John Finlay |
|
to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Nothern Development |
Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
|
to the Minister for
International Cooperation |
Mr. Mark Assad |
|
to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration |