37th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 084
CONTENTS
Monday, September 24, 2001
|
|
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Sir John A. Macdonald and the Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day Act |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Customs Act |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (House Leader for the
Official Opposition in the House of Commons, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Customs Act--Speaker's
Ruling |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Statements by Members
|
|
|
Home Children of
Canada |
|
|
Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Richard Jaroszonek |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Softwood Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Forces |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.) |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead,
Lib.) |
|
|
Lumber |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Prostate Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Pesticide Awareness
Day |
|
|
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Taliban |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Prostate Cancer |
|
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan,
Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
National Security |
|
|
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.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
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. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
CSIS |
|
|
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acadians |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Terrorism |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.) |
|
|
Federal-Provincial
Relations |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.) |
|
|
Social Insurance
Numbers |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Industry |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Airline Safety |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
National Revenue |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
PC/DR Coalition--Speaker's
Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
VIA Rail |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Bioartificial
Kidney |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.) |
|
|
Falun Gong |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.) |
|
|
Questions on the Order
Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Customs Act |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mrs. Pauline Picard |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair) |
|
|
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
International Boundary Waters Treaty
Act |
|
|
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke,
BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin |
|
|
Adjournment Proceedings
|
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR) |
|
|
[------] |
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos) |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, September 24, 2001
Speaker: The Honourable Peter
Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1100)
[Translation]
Sir John A. Macdonald and the Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Day Act
The House resumed from June 7, 2001 consideration of the
motion that Bill S-14, an act respecting Sir
John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the bill
respecting Sir John A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day. I find it
somewhat curious that a Liberal member tabled this bill in the House, yet their
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is unable to provide his support to the
Bloc Quebecois to recognize the importance of the deportation of the
Acadians.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are not afraid of calling
attention to this great historic mistake because we are not afraid of learning
from the past. Indeed, there are a host of reasons why it would be
inappropriate for us to support the bill tabled before us this morning. The
wording alone indicates that one of the reasons to celebrate the birth of
Wilfrid Laurier is because of the fact that he was an ardent supporter of
national unity. To which national unity does this refer?
For us, Canadian unity, and all that has been done in
its name, represents the main obstacle to Quebec's development. In Quebec,
national unity, in the sense of preserving the current federal system, is not
the political objective that transcends all others. Rather, it is more of a
problem for Quebecers. For sovereignists like us, the answers are to be found
elsewhere.
Over and above our constitutional opinion, however,
there are numerous reasons the federal parliament ought not to get involved in
historical commemoration. First of all, we must be forearmed against the
temptation of having an official and politically oriented history, by not
giving the Canadian government the opportunity to use history to political
ends. Who would be in charge of the celebrations, if not Canadian Heritage, a
department that ensures that everything it lays hands on sends out a message of
Canadian unity?
There are two nations in Canada; there are two national
histories. We should also add the aboriginal perspective of history. Each of
these versions places the emphasis on different aspects of historical events
and figures. For example, one side of the Ottawa River celebrates Victoria Day
while the other celebrates Dollard des Ormeaux.
Let us take the example of Confederation, which the
bill describes as “the major accomplishment of J.A. Macdonald”. Everyone knows
that Macdonald would have preferred a legislative union that would have made
Canada a unitary state, and that he made sure that Canadian federation would be
highly centralized.
In fact Macdonald championed the federal idea, and not
the confederal idea as people wanted to have it believed, in order to attract
the maritime provinces and to overcome the strong reservations expressed by
Quebec. Moreover, despite promises to the contrary, the British North America
Act was never voted on in a referendum. Even if the Quebecers supported
Macdonald's party in the November 1867 election, this must not lead us to
conclude that they backed his vision of Canada. Bending the truth, the
newspaper La Minerve, a propaganda tool—yes, propaganda is nothing
new—presented the partners of Confederation as sovereign states delegating part
of their rights and powers to a so-called “central” government. What an
appealing notion, a partnership between sovereign states. That is what the
people of Quebec thought they were embarking on.
Not everyone was taken in, however. Let us keep in mind
that there was the “Parti des rouges”—yes, the party to which Wilfrid Laurier
belonged—which opposed confederation. In May 1867, Laurier wrote as follows in
his newspaper Le Défricheur:
We must return completely and
directly to the politics of Mr. Papineau, protest with all our might against
the new order that has been imposed on us and use whatever influence we have
left to demand and obtain a free and separate government. |
Of course, after 1867, Wilfrid Laurier ended up playing
the game and became a supporter of the Canadian system. He was Prime Minister
for 15 consecutive years and continued the work of Macdonald. Yet, is the
legacy of these two men unsullied? Talk to those Franco-Manitobans still left.
Manitoba might have become the model of a Canada where the two peoples,
anglophone and francophone, could live together side by side.
There was also the hanging of Louis Riel that Prime
Minister Macdonald could have prevented, and the elimination of educational
rights of the francophones that another Prime Minister, Wilfrid Laurier, did
not have the courage to stop. “It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister is a
French Canadian”, he said to his friend and former colleague, Henri Bourassa,
“because as a French Canadian I do things I would never do were I
English”.
(1105)
This is why in today's Canada 19 francophones out of 20
live in Quebec. This was what fate had in store for these two
peoples.
Why should the Government of Canada stop at honouring
just these two Prime Ministers with a special day? However, the legacy of the
greatest Prime Ministers is just as controversial.
Let us take Robert Borden and Mackenzie King, who
imposed conscription during the two world wars in the 20th century. There is
Louis Saint-Laurent, who oversaw the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway,
the first of a series of federal decisions that drained Montreal's prosperity
away toward Ontario. I refer to the auto pact and the Borden line, which put
Ontario at the heart of Canada's automobile and petrochemical
industries.
When we think about it, it is a good idea to recall
history. It reminds us more clearly why there is a sovereignist opposition in
Ottawa.
In Quebec, we would have a lot of other great
individuals to commemorate. They include Samuel de Champlain, Garagonthié,
Marie Gérin-Lajoie, Henri Bourassa, Norman Bethune, Thérèse Casgrain, Gaston
Miron and many others. There would not be enough dates on the calendar to
celebrate all our great men and women. This is certainly true for the rest of
Canada, and we respect that. But it is not our history.
For all these reasons and despite the respect Quebecers
feel for past heroes of the Dominion of Canada, the Bloc Quebecois has decided
to oppose this bill.
(1110)
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we witnessed the tragic
and horrible events that took place in the United States, and we were all
profoundly shocked. It was a painful nightmare for each one of us.
It is not my intention to speak about the terrorists'
attacks and their repercussions. However, this recent terrible tragedy brought
home to us only too vividly that which we hold most dear: our country, our
freedoms, and our values as Canadians, our way of life.
In moments of tragedy, the values we cherish shine the
brightest, and our desire to preserve those values and see them grow takes on a
new urgency.
It is our pride in being Canadians that underlies the
bill before us today.
Bill S-14 pays tribute to two of our great prime
ministers: Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This bill will enable
us to remain proud of our past and mindful of our heritage.
Some will perhaps wonder what we have to gain by
setting aside the birthdays of these two men as special days. The answer is a
simple one.
If there is one thing that we have learned from the
tragic events of recent days, it is that as Canadians we cannot and must not
take for granted everything that we have.
If we pass Bill S-14, we will send a message to all, to
current and future generations of Canadians, that we keep in our collective
mind the memory of Canada's first Prime Minister and first French speaking
Prime Minister.
We will thus show our commitment to celebrate their
contributions to Canada, as well as the values and principles on which these
contributions are based. We will also show that we are not prepared to take our
heritage for granted.
In a world that is increasingly based on global trade,
technology and communications, we are constantly at risk of losing sight of our
Canadian identity. And this risk will be even greater as we face the challenges
of the 21st century. In trying to meet these challenges, we can build on the
examples of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who were men of
great value.
At times we may think that our problems are
insurmountable and we may also be tempted to lose faith in our ability as a
nation to overcome the obstacles before us.
But we could certainly put things in perspective by
pointing out the innumerable difficulties faced by John A. Macdonald, Wilfrid
Laurier and the other Fathers of Confederation when they were trying to turn a
beautiful dream into reality, that is to build a country, to build Canada.
It is also important to remember some of the other
great achievements of John A. Macdonald, this great Canadian, including the
building of Canada's first national railway, the Intercolonial Railway.This
monumental project helped build the infrastructure required to settle the
western Canada, develop our economy and strengthen our national
identity.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier's contributions were different, but
just as important. His immigration policy helped create and define our current
society.
A staunch protector of national unity, he believed that
both founding cultures could not only coexist, but also forge together a
stronger and more prosperous nation, a nation that would serve as a model to
the whole world.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier had long
term vision and their leadership helped Canada grow, evolve and
prosper.
Over the past 134 years, we have been put to the test
many times. We have experienced wars and the great depression, and we have
witnessed major social and technological changes. In fact, we are being put to
the test now.
(1115)
One of the most potent forces that equips us to meet
the challenges of our time is the memory of what those who came before us have
contributed and accomplished. That is what lies behind this bill's
creation.
I join with other hon. members in congratulating the
hon. colleague who introduced this bill. It was a most laudable initiative on
his part. In addition, he has given us an opportunity to perpetuate in memory
the accomplishments of these two great Canadians. We must seize that
opportunity. Let us not miss out on it.
Our role as parliamentarians has a number of different
dimensions. We pay attention to the interests of those whom we represent, and
we do our utmost to represent them well. We take part in this fundamental
activity of legislating, of fine tuning as it were, the rules that govern our
society.
Our responsibility as parliamentarians includes another
dimension as well. We set an example for other Canadians each time we rise to
speak in this House, each time that we vote, each time we take a position on
matters of importance that influence the daily lives of each and every
Canadian.
Today we have the opportunity to speak out on an
important issue. By voting in support of Bill S-14 , we will be reminding
Canadians of part of their heritage and of the strength we can derive from it
as we trace our path through this new century and this new millennium we are
just entering.
I would therefore invite all hon. members to reflect
seriously on the substance of this bill and to give it their support, for it
means not only paying tribute to two great man—Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier—a noble goal in itself, but also forging more solid ties
between our past and our future.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance it is
an honour for me to speak to this issue about two great Canadians, a French
Canadian and an English Canadian. What better time than right now to talk about
this in the difficult times we are all faced with today.
These two men, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier, were unifiers and builders. They were individuals who saw Canada as a
whole, Canada as a nation, Canada as one nation indivisible, a country for all
people, embracing the diversity we have; they were individuals who embraced
this diversity not as a weakness but as a strength. That is what Sir John A.
Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier would have done then and that is what they
would have said today.
These two gentlemen would be rolling over in their
graves if they could see what has happened to the unification of our country,
if they could see how our federal-provincial relations have been weakened, if
they could see how the threads, actually steel, that bind us together have been
chopped up and put down in order to support smaller and more parochial
interests. These men would not tolerate this. They would say how, in this big
country, do we embrace what is strong in our country and how do we actually try
to improve and build bridges among all Canadians?
They would abhor the fact that in our country language
has been used as a political tool rather than as a unifier. Language, an agent
of communication and unification, has been used as a political tool to turn one
Canadian against another. What a tragedy it is in a country like ours that is
fortunate enough to embrace two great languages, English and French, that these
languages have been used as a political tool to turn Canadian against Canadian.
Both these gentlemen would find this utterly abhorrent.
They would also find it sad to see that
federal-provincial relations have come to a stage when provinces are looking to
the federal government as to what they can take and individual responsibilities
have been blurred and marred so that Canadians are not getting the best bang
for their buck, so that political institutions cannot work as effectively as
they should.
What Macdonald and Laurier would want to do, perhaps,
is ensure that the federal and provincial governments each do what they are
able to do best, that responsibilities are well delineated and that we are able
to ensure that Canadians are able to get the services they need when they need
them in the most effective way possible and that national standards are adhered
to. A Canadian who lives in British Columbia or a Canadian who lives in Quebec
or one who lives in Newfoundland should be able to receive pretty much the same
types of services.
Unfortunately, with the balkanization of critical
services in health care and education we do not see that any more. We see
dramatic differences across the country. Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid
Laurier would both want to change that. They would both want to find ways to
get some equivalency across Canada today.
They would also see in the country we have today that
sometimes we focus on what Michael Ignatieff calls “the narcissism of the minor
differences”, where we tend to focus on the small things that divide us rather
than the great things that unify us. If the tragedy of September 11 has told us
one thing it is that we as a country are one nation regardless of where we
live, and that the problems we have within our own borders pale in comparison
to the international challenges we have. September 11 has shown us that we live
in a global environment with global challenges, where our economy is intimately
entwined with the economies of countries around the world, where our individual
security is intimately entwined with the security of our neighbours and our
allies.
This makes it even more important that as a country we
broaden our horizons to see that we have to participate in the global economy
perhaps better than we have. Canada has to look to ways to improve our economic
competitiveness, not by looking within our own borders but by saying that we
will compete internationally. We need to break down the barriers to trade that
exist within our country and abroad. We need to lower our tax structure to make
us more competitive. We need to improve our education system because we know
that a child being educated in Canada today, perhaps in Ottawa, is competing
not only with the child in Toronto but with children who live in Tokyo,
Beijing, Delhi and Cape Town.
(1120)
As individuals here, we are competing on a global
playing field. The tragedy of September 11 also indicated that our individual
security was entwined with our allies.
Unfortunately, over the last eight years our defence
forces have been gutted. Our ground and troop component is less than 55,000
people, when it was 90,000. From a navy perspective, we only have one frigate
that is functional.
Again, from the army perspective the minimum
requirement for an international endeavour, such as what we will be asked, is a
brigade. A brigade is made up of 5,000 men and women. We have not functioned
with 5,000 personnel in over nine years. How are we expected to function?
Furthermore, our defence department said that for us to transfer 5,000 people
it would take more than three months, and we could not sustain that number for
more than six months in the field.
Our airlift capabilities are almost non-existent. As a
colonel in the military recently said, it is “a near catastrophe”. Therefore,
we cannot transport them without our voting to rent planes from our
allies.
Our CF-18 fighters, one of the most potent weapons we
have, is in dire straits right now because we have less than 24 of our 120 that
could put into the field. There are questions about whether or not those
fighters could actually integrate with the Americans fighters because some of
the systems on board are obsolete.
We have superb men and women in our military, men and
women who are willing to work hard to ensure that our security will be
protected. Yet they have not been given the tools to do the job. They will
again be asked to go perhaps to a foreign land to lay their lives down to
protect our citizens as well as the citizens of our allies.
The war on terrorism will be an international war to
root out those individuals who would rather blow up the negotiating table than
sit at it. Unfortunately, negotiations for those individuals are over.
Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier would
have ensured that our military had the tools to do the job and that we would be
able to meet our commitments, commitments our country made in 1994. Our white
paper in 1994 made a whole series of commitments, almost none of which we can
meet at this point in time.
Unfortunately, it took a catastrophe to draw our focus
toward this, but I am hopeful. We will offer the government constructive
suggestions to improve the security of our country, both domestically and
internationally.
In closing, the bill is a good bill. These two
gentlemen, our former prime ministers, French and English, are true Canadian
heroes. We do not do enough to uphold these individuals who were outstanding
individuals and Canadians, individuals who tried to build our
country.
As legislators today, as we sit here with this great
responsibility, we can look back to the past and learn a number of things that
will allow us to do our jobs better and more effectively for all
Canadians.
(1125)
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure on behalf of
the most recent coalition in the House of Commons to pay tribute to two
distinguished Canadians whose career constituted the establishment of
coalitions in the House and in the country.
Bill S-14 is an act respecting Sir John A. Macdonald
day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier day. The bill, introduced by the leader of the
opposition in the other place, Senator John Lynch-Staunton, so far has received
in both Houses unqualified support.
At a time when Canadians are thinking so seriously
about our future, our future as a comprehensive, cohesive and identifiable
national community in a world transformed by technology and our future as
individuals in a world where terrorists kill people simply for going to work,
it is useful for us to reflect on our past and on the extraordinary individuals
who faced down risk, faced down fear and faced down disappointment to define a
Canadian nation and identity.
[Translation]
Let me speak for a few moments about the origins of
this bill and what it seeks to do and what it does not do. It blends into one
two private members bills which died on the order paper with the call of the
last general election—one bill celebrating the birthday of Macdonald, the other
celebrating the birthday of Laurier.
The bill does not ask for the declaration of a national
holiday. This is not about a day off. The bill celebrates work. It calls on us
to remember two men whose extraordinarily hard work on behalf of Canada shaped
and sustained this nation.
[English]
By happenstance, the celebration of their lives and
their contributions to Canada will occur at opposite ends of the year: in
February for Sir John; in November for Sir Wilfrid. This will given Canadians,
especially those in our school history classes, at least two occasions to
reflect on the building of this great country and on those who contributed so
much.
Anyone who has had the honour of serving as prime
minister knows that the two standards against whom everyone else will always be
judged were Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They embodied the
young country as well as leading it. Each in his way symbolized how essential
it is in a large and diverse society to reach out to others, to embrace them
and to respect the differences which make them distinct.
Professor Desmond Morton, then director of the McGill
Institute for the Study of Canada, testified in the other place. He
stated:
They were political opponents with
all the differences that our adversarial system creates. Canada made them
surprisingly similar, too, when faced with the responsibilities of power
because the realities of this country do not change very easily even when
governments change...along with their steadfast vision of Canada and its
potential came a skill in compromise that history has shown to be indispensable
for any common future |
These two men were able to lead and lead successfully
during challenging times. It was for Macdonald to link and draw the country
together and it was for Laurier to hold it together, linguistically and
culturally.
Through the passage of the bill, we will give Canadians
an opportunity to reflect on how this country came to be, the values it
reflects and on how individuals citizens can shape and fashion the values and
the nature of this country.
We Canadians do not spend enough time celebrating our
origins. Not enough Canadian history is taught in our schools. We do not know
enough of our past. The designation of these days will give all Canadians an
opportunity to pause and consider our beginnings as a country and the
difficulties faced in the early days of keeping it together.
As Professor Morton has said, the careers of Macdonald
and Laurier overlapped. They engaged with each other. They were practical
politicians, both with overarching commitments to Canada.
Their time together is perhaps best symbolized by Sir
Wilfrid's comments made in the House of Commons on June 8, 1891. In the death
of Sir John A. Macdonald he stated:
The place of Sir John A Macdonald in
this country was so large and so absorbing that it is almost impossible to
conceive that the politics of this country--the fate of this country--will
continue without him. His loss overwhelms us. For my part, I say, with all
truth, his loss overwhelms me, and that it also overwhelms this parliament, as
if indeed one of the institutions of the land had given way. |
Sir John A. Macdonald now belongs to
the ages, and it can be said with certainty that the career which has just been
closed is one of the most remarkable careers of this century... |
He went on to say:
As to his statesmanship, it is
written in the history of Canada. It may be said without any exaggeration
whatever, that the life of Sir John Macdonald, from the time he entered
parliament, is the history of Canada. |
Laurier himself had his own indelible contribution to
the future of Canada dealing with the challenges of francophones outside
Quebec, of the Catholic Church in Quebec and of the threat to national unity
posed by World War I.
However, it is in his commitment to a united Canada
that we remember him best, as he stated at the Club National in
Montreal:
(1130)
[Translation]
We, people of French origin, have a
sense of our own individuality. We want to pass on to our children the language
we inherited from our ancestors. But while we cherish this feeling in our
hearts, we refuse to admit that it is incompatible with our being Canadians. We
are citizens of Canada and we intend to fulfill all the duties that this title
implies. |
This being said, whenever we invite men from another
race to our table, we affirm that they are our fellow citizens, just as they
affirm that we are their fellow citizens. Our country is their country: their
political opinions are our political opinions; our aspirations are their
aspirations.
What they want, and what we want, is that the rights of
minorities be respected; that our constitutional guarantees be safeguarded;
that the provinces remain sovereign and that Canada be united in its
diversity.
[English]
It is to remember these two leaders that we should set
aside the days of their birth in our calendars and celebrate their
contributions to the Canada we enjoy today.
On behalf of my colleague the leader of the opposition
in the other place, the sponsor of this bill, I would like to publicly thank
the member for Don Valley West for sponsoring the bill in this House and I
would like to thank all of those in this parliament who have spoken in support
of Bill S-14.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to join in
support of this debate. It is particularly a privilege for me to follow the
last speaker. I greatly appreciated his eloquence and his particular place in
the evolution of this wonderful country.
Recognizing and celebrating a nation's outstanding
persons, places and events are integral to the foundation of the land's
historical memory and for contributing to the sense of identity of its peoples.
Yet commemoration does not deal solely with the past. Who and what we choose to
commemorate as a country speaks volumes, not only about who we have been, but
also about who we are as a people and who we aspire to be in the future. Only
by understanding our history and learning about the lives and accomplishments
of the women and men who have built Canada can we fully appreciate what it
means to be Canadian.
We are here today to review Bill S-14 which seeks to
honour two of our greatest prime ministers, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir
Wilfrid Laurier. It would designate the birthdays of these outstanding
Canadians as special days, helping to commemorate their remarkable
contributions to the building of our nation.
The intent of the bill is clear. It represents an act
of respect and acknowledgement for these two towering figures of Canadian
history, one a Father of Confederation and the first prime minister of Canada,
the other, Canada's seventh prime minister and one of our nation's most
powerful and articulate advocates of national unity.
Most Canadians know that Sir John A. Macdonald led the
effort to make Confederation a reality. They know the fact that he drafted the
British North America Act defining the federal system by which the original
four provinces were united as one country on July 1, 1867. They know the fact
that he became Canada's first prime minister and went on to help forge a strong
and vibrant new nation. However, perhaps fewer know that it was he who launched
the intercolonial railway which would eventually provide a key physical link
for Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, linking the vast largely
unsettled land in between.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier is recognized by many Canadians as
having been an eloquent and staunch promoter of national unity and as the first
Canadian of French origin to become prime minister. Fewer Canadians know that
he held the longest unbroken term of office as prime minister, from 1896 to
1911. This was a period during which his unshakable confidence in Canada
fostered unprecedented growth and prosperity for a still young country.
If we care about preserving and celebrating the
achievements of these great Canadians, we must take the initiative to ensure
that their contributions to Canada are recognized.
It is time to take appropriate measures to honour these
exceptional men. Setting aside special days celebrating the achievement of
great Canadians is a well established and time honoured tradition in this
country.
As the bill recognizes, both Sir John A. Macdonald and
Sir Wilfrid Laurier were forward looking men who saw nation building and unity
as the road to Canada's future. Each made profound and lasting contributions to
the achievements of a strong and united Canada. The proposed legislation
represents one very tangible means of paying tribute to their legacies, and for
this reason alone, I believe the bill is worthy of support.
It seems to me that in very difficult times like the
ones we are facing, like the House is facing and like the free world is facing,
it is particularly important to give some thought to our roots and to our
history because that will give us the confidence we need to face the future
knowing that Canada was well founded and that she is still a very strong
country.
It is a privilege for me to support this
bill.
(1135)
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, on behalf of
the New Democratic Party, to thank the hon. member for Don Valley West for
bringing this very relative bill, which originated in the Senate, before the
House of Commons.
There is no question that we should set aside a day to
honour and support the builders of our country. This bill would put forward the
particular enactment.
I recommend that the member for Don Valley West convey
to the finance minister that one of the problems we have in Canada is the
history lessons taught in our classrooms. It is very important that the House
pass the bill as an enactment for the particular day, but it does absolutely
nothing if it does not reach down to our classrooms.
As a kid growing up and going through the school system
in Canada I learned more about American history than I did about Canadian
history. I always thought that was a flaw in the process. One of the problems
is that the provinces are responsible for the delivery of education.
However I will give credit where credit is due. We have
an education minister in Nova Scotia by the name of Jane Purves who is pushing
that history be made a mandatory subject in our schools. I could not agree with
her more. I say this because she is a minister of education in our province who
has gone through some very rough times, most of it brought on by herself.
However in this circumstance I support her recommendation.
What better time than now to teach students about the
first prime minister of the country and one of the longest serving prime
ministers of our country, two people from different political parties who even
today have a very strong influence on the way that the House runs, especially
in terms of bilingualism.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was stressing that need being our
first prime minister of French origin. It is imperative that the House be able
to communicate in both official languages throughout the entire country. That
is the vision of those two men and it should be honoured by the particular
day.
Perhaps the hon. member for Don Valley West would
accept a friendly amendment, not that I am proposing one. However if he nods
his head I will let him propose the amendment that we not only make it Sir John
A. Macdonald Day and Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, but also include J. S. Woodsworth
who was one of the finest democrats this country has ever seen. Maybe he would
like to include that name as part of the bill.
This is not to speak critically in any way of Mr.
Macdonald or Mr. Laurier, but at the time they were building the country an
awful lot of people were left behind in the vision of the future of Canada.
This is where J. S. Woodsworth was effective, along with M. J. Caldwell and the
late great Tommy Douglas. These were three democrats who helped build the
country.
If the member for Don Valley West wants to throw in the
name of J. S. Woodsworth he would have no argument from the New Democrats in
that regard.
It is imperative that we recognize the contribution
these two gentlemen made to Canadian history, but I impress upon the member to
advise the finance minister to ensure that the provinces have adequate funding
through the transfer programs to put money back into the classrooms so that
teachers have the resources by which to teach Canadian history.
That would do more than just honour the commitment of
these two men. It would ensure the memory of these two men in terms of
educating our children, which I believe is imperative. If we do not know our
history we cannot know where we are going.
I thank the hon. member on behalf of the New Democratic
Party for bringing forward the bill.
(1140)
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill
S-14. The bill would recognize Sir John A. Macdonald, who was born on January
11, 1815, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was born on November 20, 1841. They
should be recognized; one English, our first prime minister, and one French,
our first French prime minister.
These leaders built far better than they knew. They
took a country of regions where there was a natural north-south pole and forged
it together into a very strong east-west unity. That was felt impossible at the
time. There are many today who still think it is very difficult to do. However
they forged together what has been recognized many times as the best country in
the world and the best place in which to live.
They built the railways against great financial odds
and tremendous geographic natural difficulties. Last spring I had the
opportunity to travel by rail through the mountains from Vancouver to Edmonton
along with many of my colleagues who were on the Canada-U.S. parliamentary
association. My American and Canadian colleagues talked a lot about the history
of the railroad. We could see by looking at the rails that were placed through
the mountains some hundred years ago the tremendous amount of difficulty that
must have been faced by the people to link the country from coast to
coast.
As leaders of the country they rose above the financial
and geographic obstacles which must have been both challenging and risky. These
leaders had a lot of inspiration and dedication to stick with it to get the job
done. These two prime ministers were very instrumental in the expansion of the
west as a result of the building of the railroad and much more .
I was not surprised that the hon. member from the
Canadian Alliance who spoke earlier was trying to be a naysayer. We have an
opportunity to take a look at our history and build on it. This is not the time
to bring in current events.
One of our failings as Canadians is that we often look
at the negative. We are very fortunate to live in Canada. It has been
recognized as the best country in the world in which to live, but it is much
more than that. We live in a very tolerant multicultural society where we have
brought two great languages and many other cultures together to build this
great country. We have such a great foundation as a result of these
leaders.
We should be using the debate today when talking about
Macdonald and Laurier to build on our past and to talk about how wonderful it
was. The hon. member for
Sackville--Musquodoboit
Valley--Eastern Shore talked about there not being enough history
taught in our schools. That is absolutely true. There is not enough history
taught in our schools. If we do not know our history, we will not know where we
come from and we will not know where we should be going.
I also comment on the points raised by the Bloc that we
were naming two but that the rest of the heroes were not being
mentioned.
(1145)
There were many heroes in the country. It is important
to recognize these two men because they consolidated the inspiration to put the
country together, to tie it from coast to coast to coast, and to build on that
foundation, giving the opportunity to past leaders and current leaders to build
the kind of country that we have today.
I understand the Bloc's point of view in terms of the
tactics it uses of confusing history because it makes the cause for separatism
that much easier. However it is important to name these two leaders because it
allows us to build on our history, to recognize the great leaders of our past,
and to give high school and university students the opportunity to use these
days when they are named to further study these and other leaders from our past
and what they did to build the country.
People often look at the calendar, including myself and
I expect others in the House as well, and ask why that day is there. A study
was done to determine why the day should be recognized. As a result we have a
better knowledge and understanding of our history and of these two leaders in
Canada's past.
It is very important for all members of the House to
support Bill S-14. As Canadians we have not given enough recognition to the
leaders of our past and we have not studied enough of our history. We have not
recognized the difficulty of building a nation, the inspiration of these two
leaders and the difficulties they experienced in forging the ties to build the
kind of country we have today.
With the passage of Bill S-14 these two days would be
catalysts that Canadians could use to study our history, learn more and as a
result become better Canadians because of it.
(1150)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Prince Albert is somewhat relevant to the
debate today as it has been home to three prime ministers: John Diefenbaker,
Mackenzie King and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
If I understand correctly, John Diefenbaker was
inspired as a young boy to become prime minister upon meeting Sir Wilfrid
Laurier on the streets of Saskatoon at which time the prime minister actually
took the time to talk to him. In fact, if I am not wrong, Mr. Diefenbaker
always considered Sir Wilfrid Laurier to be our best prime minister. I have
often wondered why, if that was the case, he chose to pursue the Progressive
Conservative path rather than the Liberal path but that is another
story.
I have a great regard for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was
truly one of the real builders and visionaries in this country's past. Being
from Saskatchewan, when he became the prime minister of Canada, he was aware
that Saskatchewan and Alberta were largely unsettled. He appointed Clifford
Sifton as the minister of the interior and gave him a mandate to settle western
Canada based on its economic needs and so on. There was a very active
recruitment program in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe, to help bring
people through the prairies with its cold, long winters to cultivate and farm
the land. He was largely successful. It created a mosaic in western Canada of
many different cultures of people from many different ethnic backgrounds.
Saskatchewan and Alberta truly had a broad representation of many ethnic groups
as opposed to what central Canada was at that time, which was largely remnants
of the loyalist elements and our French heritage. It was the beginning of true
multiculturalism in the west.
I also see Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a great visionary.
Sir John A. Macdonald built Canada based on the national plan, which was really
a nationalistic type of plan, and a very protectionist concept in many
respects. Sir Wilfrid Laurier saw that Canada's future needed to be much larger
than that. It needed to be very much tied to North America and our U.S.
neighbours to the south. In 1911 he ran an election campaign on something
called reciprocity with the United States. He lost that election in 1911. That
was probably his most ambitious plan during his time.
Historically, we have seen some strange things. In
1988, some 80 or so years later, it was a Conservative government that
abandoned Macdonald's national policy and moved toward Laurier's vision of
Canada, a Canada closely integrated and tied to our American neighbours to the
south. An interesting paradox is that it was the party across the way, the
party of Laurier, that fiercely opposed the free trade agreement of 1988. I
think it would be a fair comment to say that today it now agrees with Laurier's
vision some 90 years after the fact.
I would reiterate that I see Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a
great builder of the foundation and the make-up of the provinces of
Saskatchewan and Alberta. I also see him as a great visionary
leader.
(1155)
I at times wish the party opposite could find that type
of leadership again, a leader with great vision and commitment who would not be
so concerned about just holding his finger up to see which way the wind was
blowing. It needs to recommit itself to building and creating a real vision in
the country.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill
S-14. I congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley West, for
what I think is a very good idea. There are no more important political leaders
in our history than Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Although we talk about the first English speaking prime
minister, I know Sir John would have wanted it pointed out that he was a
Scotsman as was his successor, Sir Alexander Mackenzie, the first Liberal prime
minister. We could see the ethnic nature of Canada right from the
start.
Sir John was of course the leading Father of
Confederation and did a masterful job of cobbling together the kind of
compromises that made the country necessary, and that was no mean feat trying
to get together peoples of different nationalities and religions, many of whom
had bitterly opposed each other on many fundamental points. As the ultimate
pragmatist in Canadian history, he was able to lead, along with many other
important Fathers of Confederation, and cobble together the compromise that
made Confederation a reality.
Canada became a bilingual nation in 1867, not a
bicultural nation, as many people have said. That would be to sell short the
very culture from which our first prime ministers sprang, the Scottish culture.
If were to look at the coat of arms of Canada we would see the cultural symbols
of four nations: France, England, Ireland and Scotland. This country began in
1867 as a bilingual and multicultural nation. That is not some new fact or new
policy that some would have us believe. I have heard opponents of mine in
election campaigns castigating the Liberals for being the party that created
multiculturalism. This has been a multicultural nation from day one, even more
so now as nations from all around the world have come to join the original four
European nations.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the first French Canadian prime
minister of Canada and one of the best intellects to ever occupy that office.
It is very interesting that we have just commemorated the death of former Prime
Minister Trudeau who was also one of the most brilliant men to ever be prime
minister of Canada.
One of Wilfrid Laurier's famous phrases was “the sunny
ways of compromise”. He would apply that approach to Canadian politics because
he understood that we could not have a nation made up of as many diverse
peoples as does Canada unless we were willing to have give and take.
The flag beside the Speaker's chair is very appropriate
because it is a compromise flag. It probably was nobody's first choice or
choice of a very few people.
If Macdonald was the ultimate pragmatist, then surely
Laurier was the ultimate compromiser in the best sense of the word. He sought
to build bridges and not fences. He employed the sunny ways of compromise. If
Macdonald was the original Father of Confederation and master crafter of the
nation, which he was, then Laurier oversaw its first major expansion. Laurier
oversaw the bringing in of the provinces of the west. He oversaw the so-called
people in sheepskin coats, the peoples from eastern Europe, many of whom helped
to populate western Canada. Canada also had a major influx of people from the
United States at that time.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a major player in our history
and took the country into the 20th century from the 19th century. It is no
secret that the current Prime Minister of Canada is very enamored of Sir
Wilfrid Laurier. I would think that it would be fair to say that Sir Wilfrid
Laurier is probably his political hero.
It gave us on this side of the House great pleasure to
see our colleague and current Prime Minister take this nation from the 20th
century into the 21st century as Sir Wilfrid originally took the nation from
the 19th century into the 20th century.
(1200)
Probably more than most prime ministers, Sir Wilfrid
Laurier understood the importance of minority rights, that democracy is about
majority rules but not a tyranny of the majority which ignores the rights of
the minority. Canada cannot work on that basis. Whenever we descend to that
level we run into national problems, which Macdonald and Laurier both
experienced.
Laurier dealt with some very difficult issues in his
time such as the Boer War, the first international war in which Canada
participated. Although we were not fully independent at the time in world
events, it was the first international action in which we participated. Sir
Wilfrid oversaw that.
A number of my colleagues have spoken about the
importance of Canadian history. As a teacher of Canadian history for some 21
years, I could not agree with that more. The ignorance of our own history is
absolutely appalling, dangerous and has to be addressed. I and my colleagues
who share that view call upon the federal government to do what we can. I know
the provinces protect education but we need a national education vision even if
it is a jurisdiction jealously guarded by the provinces. As Santayana put it so
well, those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat
them.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It being 12.04 p.m., the hour provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Customs Act
The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the
motion 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, and of the amendment.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House will
again consider the reasoned amendment put by the hon. member for
Edmonton--Strathcona. Before the House resumes consideration of the amendment I
would submit that it is out of order. The motion as it has been referred to
says:
|
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-- |
So far, so good. However here is the problem. The
amendment adds:
|
--since the principle of the bill fails to specifically and
adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to
terrorist activities. |
Pages 639 and 640 of Marleau and Montpetit, our
procedural manual, deal with reasoned amendments. The manual makes it clear
that a reasoned amendment:
|
--must
be relevant and relate strictly to the bill being considered. |
It must relate not to what is not in the bill but to
the bill being considered. A reasoned amendment is not relevant, and I quote
directly from M and M:
|
--if
it relates to another bill; is intended to divide the bill; proposes that the
bill be withdrawn and replaced by another bill; relates to the parent Act
rather than to the amending bill; goes beyond the scope of the
bill. |
The last proposition is important in this case. Marleau
and Montpetit goes on to state that:
It must not relate to particulars of
the bill, if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in
committee. |
The amendment before us opposes the bill because it
asserts that the bill:
|
--fails to specifically and adequately address national security
at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities. |
That is clearly beyond the scope of the bill. If it
were an issue for customs it would also be wrong because it would relate to the
parent act, as I have just stated. I am glad the hon. member raised that as
justification.
The wording of the amendment renders it out of order.
It asserts that the bill specifically omits the matter, a matter which
indicates the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. The amendment defines
itself as being out of order.
On the other hand, and in contradiction to the first
assertion, the amendment claims the bill fails to address the matter
adequately. If that were true the amendment would still be out of order on the
grounds that the question of adequacy would be dealt with by a specific clause
at a later stage, a case which I totally reject. In other words, if it were a
matter of adequacy it could be dealt with in committee later and would
therefore render the reasoned amendment out of order.
If security is specifically omitted from the bill, as
the amendment asserts, an amendment is irrelevant because it is beyond the
scope of the bill. If the amendment's second assertion is true, namely that
security in the bill is dealt with but not adequately, the amendment is still
out of order because it deals with details of the bill that may be corrected
later.
This is not a matter of being fish or fowl. It is
neither fish nor fowl. On both these grounds I respectfully submit to the Chair
that the reasoned amendment is out of order and does not qualify.
(1205)
Mr. John Reynolds (House Leader for the
Official Opposition in the House of Commons, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would add to comments of the government
House leader that the motion was put to the House a number of days ago. Not
only has the mover of the amendment spoken to it but three members from our
side have spoken to it as well.
The Speaker moved at the time that the motion was in
order. Otherwise we would not be debating it now. The government House leader
may perhaps be asleep at the switch but the motion has been debated and
approved by the Speaker. Why would the hon. government House leader challenge
the Speaker at this late date?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
I thank both hon. members for their
representations.
[Translation]
The Chair will consider the remarks by the government
House leader and return to the House with a decision in an hour.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the
people of my constituency of Cariboo--Chilcotin to participate in the debate.
The debate deals with issues we cannot consider outside the scope of what
happened on September 11.
On behalf of all the people of Cariboo--Chilcotin I
offer our sincere and deep regret at the loss of so many people in the United
States. Our ties are so intermingled that it was true when the Prime Minister
spoke in terms of friends and family. Many of us have not only friends but
family in the United States. Many more of us have friends as a result of
commercial relationships that have grown deep and strong. However it is those
who have family in the U.S., family who are in jeopardy or who have suffered,
to whom I offer our deepest regrets.
Bill S-23 seeks to amend the Customs Act and other acts
to allow for the preapproval of people, goods and low risk cross-border
travellers. It contains an amendment that points out the inadequacy of the bill
to which I am speaking now. I have been assured there has been much
consultation with industry stakeholders concerning the contents of the bill. We
are told the bill is a result of such consultation.
The bill comes none too soon and perhaps much too late.
Bill S-23 focuses on risk management. It would implement automated electronic
reporting mechanisms such as Canpass Nexus and EPPS for preapproved, low risk
commercial and personal travellers so that greater resources could be applied
to so-called higher and unknown risk traffic.
Landings under the new programs proposed in Bill S-23
would be subject to random stop checks and a regime of monetary sanctions that
match the frequency and severity of the infractions.
(1210)
Why do we need the bill? There is a consensus among our
business community, consumers and tourists that as a free trading nation we
must maximize the efficiencies of moving people, products and capital across
our border.
Canada and the United States have enjoyed the benefits
of sharing the largest and longest peaceful border in the world. We share a
border with the largest economy in the world. We need to ensure we take
advantage of the opportunities of being in close proximity to such a wealthy
neighbour. We must prevent any disruptions that would harm those
advantages.
In 1995 we signed the Canada-United States accord on
our shared border. Its goal was to promote international trade, streamline
processes for legitimate travellers and commercial goods, provide enhanced
protection against drug smuggling and the illegal entrance of people, and
reduce costs for both governments.
Everyone agrees we must do these things to ensure our
prosperity. In the past we have managed to increase Canada's trade under the
free trade agreement and NAFTA. Let us look at some of the facts and
figures.
The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency handles over $500
billion in cross-border trade and processes more than 108 million travellers
each year. Over 87% of our trade is with the United States. The emergence of
so-called just in time manufacturing and e-commerce has shortened delivery
deadlines from a matter of days to a matter of hours.
All these advancements have created an exponential
increase in cross-border volume. However, have we agreed with the United States
on reciprocal arrangements that would prevent the bill from becoming a
detriment to trade and thereby slowing the process by which our products go
into the United States? We should ask for assurances that the United States
will take the same measures to ensure a level playing field so that Canadian
goods can flow into the United States as easily as American goods and people
come into Canada.
Earlier this summer I drafted a short questionnaire for
our international visitors. It came out of a number of complaints I have
received from our tourism operators that some of their clients and guests have
been harassed at the border.
I think of a 70 some year old lady who was detained and
given a great deal of difficulty because she intended to come to Canada for
more than just a few weeks to care for a sick daughter. She understood the laws
and intended to obey them. However the problems she encountered were such that
other people who saw them turned back to the United States rather than continue
their holiday in Canada. This is only one of many instances of which I have
been advised.
In Cariboo--Chilcotin we have many visitors travelling
from outside Canada to our beautiful part of the world. Because of the economic
situation of today these visitors are absolutely essential to our
economy.
On the questionnaire I prepared I asked visitors to
tell me about their experiences at our border. I will use their responses to
advise the minister responsible for Canada customs about shortfalls and the
lack of good service at our borders.
This is an important exercise because we want tourists
to return with their vacation dollars. We want them to feel at ease and not
have a problem vacationing in Canada. I am happy to report to the House that
the results of the survey were mostly positive, though certainly not
all.
At the same time Canadians want assurances from the
government that from a national security perspective we can ensure that people,
products and capital entering Canada are not an economic, medical or criminal
risk.
As a result of the vicious attack on the United States
on September 11, our border security has become one of the chief concerns of
all Canadians. Apparently the protection of our borders, freedoms and way of
life is not the chief concern of the government.
(1215)
Today's debate on Bill S-23 is late and it is a weak
effort under today's circumstances. The bill attempts to streamline border
procedures but it is only a start. It does not take into account difficulties
that we discussed in the House four, five and six years ago, difficulties that
our customs and immigration people are having with their computers in
communicating with the computers of other departments and other agencies, where
customs and police are not on the same page and where the lack of essential
information is not communicated and is not available.
It was only last spring that we were talking about
adapting CPIC, the police computer system, to monitor sex offenders and to
create a registry. The government turned that down. This in my view is an
essential component of the protection of our citizens. The government's refusal
to consider this is only another example of its lack of concern for the basic
security and welfare of our own citizens.
We are all trying to engage the government in a greater
debate on national security, in particular the integrity of our borders, ports,
coastlines and airlines. The government continues to turn a deaf ear and to
speak to us in the most rude manner. The Prime Minister is hesitating. There is
no apparent willingness to move from the comfortable past to meet the urgent,
threatening and dangerous challenges not of the future but of today.
Canadians want to see more effective screening and
security at our borders and more effective tracking of refugee claimants and
permanent residents within Canada. We want the ability to deport suspected
terrorists to their countries of origin or the countries where the crimes were
committed. Let me say that again: We want immediate action to detain and deport
anyone in Canada illegally or failed refugee claimants linked to terrorist
organizations. We want an improved ability to detect these dangerous people. We
believe that our first priority should be the protection of Canadian people and
the safety of all our citizens.
We all agree that the threat to our safety is real. Why
will the government not take it seriously? This legislation is late and half
baked. It does not meet the needs of today and that is why we cannot support
it.
Before last week's terrorist assault on the United
States, Canadians faced the threat of long waits at the border because the
United States was threatening to implement changes. It has drawn up section 110
of the U.S. illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act. These
changes would require more indepth interviews and examination of documents at
the border. This would cause considerable hardship to Canadians trying to do
business in the United States. That is the threat the United States has been
holding over the government's head. The government has dragged its feet when it
comes to protecting our borders so the United States is prepared to do
something about it. The U.S. has talked about doing the job for the Liberal
government by using section 110 of its immigration act.
The Canadian Alliance has supported a move toward more
use of technology in terms of how we handle border crossings. We support that.
The idea of using the technology of retina scanners and handprint readers, the
so-called biometric pass system, is necessary in today's world. We have tried
to show the Liberals the work that must be done to protect our citizens and the
United States from the long reach of terrorists.
I want to be clear: Canada's porous border is not a
reflection on hard working men and women who serve as our customs officers. It
is a result of policy decisions that shifted customs from a security mandate to
the Department of National Revenue with the prime mandate of recovering tax and
duty for the crown.
Our customs and immigration officers should be more
than tax collectors, but that is what they have been relegated to.
(1220)
That is what the Liberals are most concerned about, it
seems: collecting taxes as well as collecting votes. When it comes to Canada's
immigration and refugee policies, the Liberals seem most concerned about
collecting these votes.
Canada has no definition of refugee. The government
simply takes those who present themselves at the border and declare themselves
to be refugees. Then it is our responsibility to determine the validity of
these claims. Why can Canada not use a UN convention definition of refugee and
predetermine which legitimate refugees should come to our country to be useful,
productive and happy citizens? We need a definition of refugee. Let us make use
of the UN definition and know who we are welcoming, know who is coming to our
borders and know that we can trust them. There are ways of avoiding those who
would come here to harm us.
David Harris, former CSIS chief of strategic planning,
declared it is guaranteed that the terrorists are coming. He also referred to
Canada as a big jihad aircraft carrier for launching strikes against the United
States. In January 1999 a special Senate committee on security and intelligence
stated very clearly that Canada is a venue of opportunity for terrorist
groups.
Other former senior government staff members have
expressed concern. The government has not listened. It is still not listening.
The government must improve our border entry and our exit security. By not
responding to the pleas from the United States concerning the openness we have
enjoyed along the Canada-U.S. border, the government is jeopardizing billions
of trade dollars and tens of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The government should be pursuing policies and laws
that protect the lives and livelihoods of all Canadians. We must weigh the
concerns about the safety of our citizens and the preservation of an open trade
relationship with the United States with our humanitarian responsibility to
receive genuine refugees. We can no longer have a policy of admit first, ask
questions later.
If the Liberal government is not willing to increase
our standard of national security, the United States will not be willing to
jeopardize the safety and security of the American people by continuing open
access across our long undefended border. If we do not respect and defend that
border from abuse by unscrupulous people, dangerous people, it will not remain
an undefended border. That would be a great shame. We must do everything for
the economic well-being of our citizens, the safety of our citizens and the
harmony of this precious relationship we have with the people of the United
States of America.
(1225)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and one question.
During this debate there has been some implication that the United States of
America is anti-immigrant and anti-refugee. Let us just examine that
implication.
Some 400 years ago that country was settled. As far as
I know the people who made that country grow and become a country that today
has 5% of the world's population and 35% of the world's GDP were immigrants
from all four corners of the world. There is no country in the world that is
more multicultural, built on immigration and refugees, than the United States
of America.
Again, I see a hint of anti-Americanism behind the
reaction of some government members: that we cannot really work together with
the Americans with a common immigration and refugee policy because somehow they
are not in favour of immigration and refugee policies like we are. I just want
to set the record straight on that matter. The U.S. has probably been more
pro-immigrant and pro-refugee during its history than Canada has.
I have another concern. I would like to draw this
question to the attention of my learned colleague for his comments. There has
been a suggestion on the government side that in the face of this terrorist
threat what the government will do is take a moderate, balanced approach in
dealing with this threat with bin Laden and the international terrorist groups
and the 40,000 people in Canada who have deportation orders and have not been
deported. We will take a liberal, moderate, balanced middle of the road
approach.
As a student of history, I have a lot of problems with
that. If Roosevelt and Churchill in the face of Hitler had said that they would
take a moderate, middle of the road approach in dealing with Adolf Hitler and
nazis, where we would be? I do not think we are talking about domestic social
programs here or some other type of program in regard to which they like to use
this terminology and I would like my colleague to respond to whether he could
envision the Government of Canada fighting terrorism with a moderate, balanced,
middle of the road approach.
Mr. Philip Mayfield:
Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting comment that my
colleague makes concerning a moderate, balanced approach?
For so long we have prided ourselves on being moderate
and balanced, even in immoderate and unbalanced times. We have this little
mantra that has been a bit spoiled lately because the United Nations did not
declare us to be the best nation in the world this year, but we are the best
country in the world, a little mantra with which the government has tried to
soothe our people.
When we look at the history of Canada, it has not been
those moments of crisis we dealt with in a moderate, balanced way that have
made Canada the nation we can be proud of. I was in Quebec City some months ago
reviewing my history. It is interesting to note that there were times when we
could not even have a balanced and moderate approach with the citizens of the
United States. Fortunately since the war of 1812 that has not been something we
have been concerned about. However, I think of Canada and the effort it made in
World War I, the second world war and the Korean war and those citizens who
volunteered, as members of my family did, to defend the principles of democracy
and freedom from fascism, from naziism and from tyranny.
Today we are faced with some of those same immoderate
forces. We have been told, not by foreign experts but by our own people who
care about these matters, that there is a serious threat, yet we are still
talking about moderation and balance.
I spent many years in the ministry, years in which I
was proud to care for many people. It is something from which I get the most
satisfaction. However, there were instances where one would be with someone
diagnosed with a terminal illness. One would sit and listen to the moderate,
balanced approach of someone who perhaps had a week or a month to live as he
talked about what he would do in the next 10 years.
These are times when we must look seriously at the
situation we are in and when we must act decisively. When I hear our foreign
affairs minister speak in those aggressive tones, I applaud him. I hope his
government is listening to him and I hope the Prime Minister is remembering
what he said as he sits with President Bush today. I truly hope that our Prime
Minister will not have the experience of visiting the woodshed at the White
House when he goes there today. He is in danger of that and he deserves it for
his moderate and balanced approach to so many issues and so many policies,
which has left our country lagging.
I think of our emergency response resources in British
Columbia that have been almost totally depleted as far as the government is
concerned. The military has been taken away. Unused ships sit tied up. The
military airports are practically vacant. The army is gone. We talk about
bringing the resources we might need in British Columbia in the event of a
civil emergency over the highways. What do we do when those mountainous
highways are closed and there is no way through them? We are talking through
our hats in moderate, balanced tones when we need decisive action.
British Columbians are extremely concerned about this.
They are talking about it a lot. We need decisions that move us with decisive
actions, that will protect and care for our citizens, that will look after the
future of our children and see that they are safe.
(1230)
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with
great interest. I have been to the border numerous times. One of the things I
find very troubling when I am there is that it is almost like our people are
not equipped to handle any type of emergency there. I would like the member to
comment on that if he could, please.
Also, there is some talk basically from the American
side of the border with regard to creating a perimeter. I look at that very
favourably. I would like to know the member 's views on that.
Mr. Philip Mayfield:
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize once again to my
colleague that the lack of resources at our border is the result of policy
decisions that are made here in Ottawa.
The men and women on the front line know what they
need. They have been asking for them. If responsive and good people engage them
in conversation, they would tell them what they need. The problem is that we
have different priorities in Ottawa, priorities that do not necessarily include
the welfare and well-being of our citizens, the security of our
borders.
With regard to an open border with the United States
and a tighter border at our ports and airports where people from other
continents come into Canada, that is something we have to look at very
seriously and adopt. The United States at this time is determining where it is
going to be putting its stops at its borders. We do not want them at Blaine,
Windsor and Niagara. We want the stops to be secure at Vancouver, Halifax and
Toronto where the airports are.
My colleague has raised a most important question. I
beg the government to seriously consider it.
(1235)
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
talk about the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's action plan.
I wholeheartedly support Bill S-23 as presented by my
colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. I cannot stress enough the
importance of pushing the bill forward. Bill S-23 proposes to modernize the
management of our border, to further encourage trade and tourism, all this
without jeopardizing safety and the security of Canadians.
Over the past five years the volume of trade and travel
has steadily increased. This surge of activity at the border has compelled the
CCRA to re-evaluate how it can best carry out its dual mandate of protection,
and trade and travel facilitation.
I believe strongly that the customs action plan will
serve Canadians well. It will improve the flow of people and goods across the
border and will strengthen our country's ability to protect its
citizens.
I think hon. members will agree that following the
terrorist attacks on the United States it has become even more crucial that
this bill become a reality. We need to act now.
Bill S-23 includes a range of enforcement initiatives
and services that support the protection of Canadians and the competitiveness
of business. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the great
majority of travellers comply with our laws and regulations. However there are
those who cross our border illegally, some with the intent to undermine the
safety of Canadians. The amendments in Bill S-23 can help stop this
threat.
At the heart of the customs action plan are the
principles of pre-approval and advance information, all supported by
technology. Programs such as customs self-assessment and the administrative
monetary penalty system are key elements that form the risk management approach
detailed by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue.
Bill S-23 will also enable CCRA to better channel its
efforts and resources by concentrating its attention on high risk people or
goods trying to enter Canada. Bill S-23 will clarify current laws to allow the
CCRA to effectively administrate and enforce its mandate. For this reason the
purpose of the changes proposed in Bill S-23 will help Canada customs do a
better job of keeping undesirable people and illegal drugs out of this
country.
Furthermore the proposed changes in Bill S-23 will give
Canada customs more authority in controlled areas of airports and other border
points. Those controlled areas not only support the business goals of the
Canadian air industry but they will also create seamless connection processes
for travellers in a secured and protected environment.
It is important to note that Canada customs will
continue to work closely with enforcement agencies and other government
departments to address illegal activities and the threats to health, safety and
the security at our borders.
(1240)
The customs action plan is not a downsizing exercise.
To the contrary it is about a simplified process and improved efficiency so
that business can go on smoothly and efficiently. Nevertheless low risk traders
and travellers will still be subject to periodic spot checks when entering
Canada.
In addition to the responsibility to control imported
goods, the amendments in Bill S-23 also give customs inspectors the authority
to reinforce export laws. This is to ensure that exported goods do not pose a
threat to Canada or any other country.
I would like to reiterate that as a result of the
recent events, these are essential steps toward ensuring the safety and
security of Canadians. As indicated by the Minister of National Revenue, I
cannot stress enough the importance of Bill S-23 for the Government of Canada
to better protect Canadians and to continue to promote trade and investment in
Canada. It is essential that we support the customs action plan and the
amendments contained in Bill S-23. Let us not forget that the protection of
Canadians should always remain a top priority.
I urge members today to say yes to the bill. By doing
so we will contribute to protecting the Canadian population from undue
harm.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week the president of Honda Motor
Company made it quite clear that because of the bottlenecks on the highway for
movement of goods from Canada to the U.S., they could not see themselves making
any further or future investments in this country. Magma International, the big
parts manufacturer in Ontario, exports a tremendous volume of parts to the
United States auto industry south of the border.
There is a high speed, one lane highway system. It is a
two lane highway but there is a high speed lane and a lane that is just about
completely blocked. There is nothing moving through that lane. The high speed
lane is the one the government is dealing with which is the flow of goods from
the U.S. to Canada. The lane that is more important to Canadians is the other
lane, the movement of our goods into the United States. The United States
ambassador has made it very clear that he has a fair number of concerns about
some of the things we have been doing in Canada in terms of security. The
answers we are getting in the House refer to a moderate, balanced approach, the
Canadian way of doing things.
There are other people in the U.S. who are very
concerned about our internal policies. The auditor general referred to 40,000
residents of Canada who are not Canadians, people who are subjects of
deportation orders but have not been deported.
Our country has security problems that the government
has not addressed and it shows at our borders. There was the millennium bomber
situation. I hope members watched the special on CBC last night. The French
were trying to get search warrants here to deal with the terror cell in
Montreal and it took six months before they were approved. The commentator just
shook his head at our lax policy.
The question for my colleague on the other side of the
House is, what are they going to do to open up the other lane?
(1245)
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, we all share the hon. member's concern.
The reason we have introduced Bill S-23 is to expedite the border traffic and
improve the situation. That is the whole purpose as the member has indicated.
We are trying to respond to the concerns. It is hoped that we can get the bill
passed soon and the situation will improve.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about a
comment CSIS director Ward Elcock made in 1998. Mr. Elcock called Canada one of
the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets and revealed that, with perhaps the
singular exception of the United States, there were more international
terrorist groups active here than in any other country in the world. Just how
accurate his words were became evident when a Montreal resident was arrested
trying to smuggle bomb making materials into the United States.
Bill S-23 talks about streamlining legitimate
cross-border trade and travel. They have set up a process of electronic
monitoring, self-assessment, advance information and pre-approvals.
Could the hon. member tell us how will the government
balance both those concerns; on one hand, the free movement of goods and people
and on the other hand, avoid catastrophes which already have happened where
known terrorists in this country have crossed the border with the intention to
wreak havoc in the United States?
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, as we know, the reason we have introduced
the bill is to focus more on the high risk travellers and the undesirable
people. We also intend to improve our computer systems and have a trained staff
that will be able to identify the risk individual entering Canada. This is our
aim.
In the meantime, the majority of people who come in are
law-abiding and without any risk. We are going to shift our focus more on the
risk that will occur at our borders. That is our intention. We can do this by
approving the bill. We then will be able to address these concerns.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in light of recent events, we have heard
quite a bit about securing the perimeter of North America. It comes down to the
question of what sort of consultation are we having with our neighbours to the
south?
In that regard could the member tell us what
consultations the government has had in bringing forward the bill to the House?
It is very important that we know that we are consulting our American
counterparts when we bring forward this type of legislation.
(1250)
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, we know that the RCMP and CSIS work not
only with the United States, but they also work in joint force with other
countries. I am sure there will be a lot more joint effort to try to address
some of the problems, especially those concerning protection and security for
Canadians.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick:
Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments about the
use of computers and technology to minimize the risk at the border. I suppose
that is a very good initiative by the government on that matter, but I wonder
how that will deal with this problem.
If we take the situation of the millennium bomber, my
understanding of the matter is that he was out of the country and managed to
get himself a new passport. The passport changed his name from Ressam to Benni
Norris. No matter what computer system was used, nothing showed up on a Benni
Norris. It was blank. There was no criminal record and nothing in the
background. If one had punched in Ressam, he or she would have found a lot of
stuff.
I think just about everybody realizes that we have
holes in our system right across the board. Our passport system is obviously a
Mickey Mouse operation.
What can the government say about that particular
situation? Will its computer systems be able to deal with phoney passport
situations and so on or will it just let it go the way that it has been
going?
Ms. Sophia Leung:
Mr. Speaker, we all know that security is a very
complex matter. We all know that terrorists' movements are not restricted to
Canada and the U.S. They move all around the world.
We have confidence. Canada is trying to update and
improve the many different aspects of security. I know that the CCRA will
receive $87 million to update and improve our system. Our intention is to
improve the system for customs and at the border. I have full confidence that
the RCMP and CSIS will do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have risen in
the House since the resumption of parliamentary business, I wish to greet my
fellow citizens of Joliette. It is because of their concerns that I intervene
in the debate on Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act.
I note that the aim of Bill S-23 is to modernize
customs administration. I think we should have another look at some of the
objectives the minister of revenue and officials noted as underlying the
amendment of the Customs Act.
The first part is intended to modernize the customs
administration by providing 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.
The bill also provides for monetary penalties in
respect of designated contraventions. There are a whole series of amendments to
the Customs Act and to other related acts.
It is important to take another look at the objectives
of the bill, because we must make sure that it meets the objectives set out by
the minister and the officials. These objectives are in response to the
government's commitment to modernize the management of borders, to reduce legal
activities and threats to public security and to raise confidence levels of
exporters and individuals travelling abroad.
Does the bill meet these objectives? This is what we
would like to know. Obviously, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for international
trade, I am extremely sensitive to everything that affects the flow of trade.
Faster processing at the border clearly has a significant impact on our ability
to export to the United States and around the world. In addition, as concerns
imports, it is vital our companies be in a position to respond to customer
demand and to have the resources, be they natural resources, machinery,
technology or individual expertise, at the right time.
In principle, therefore, we do not oppose the bill, nor
are we opposed to the desire to modernize our customs system, since the volume
of transborder shipments now exceeds $500 billion and over 100 million
travellers enter or leave Canada annually.
As I mentioned, we agree in principle with the bill's
objectives. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting in favour of this bill
at second reading.
However, I must emphasize that there are shortcomings
in the bill, which must be corrected before we will give our final approval,
before the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill at third
reading.
There are four problems: the first has to do with
security; the second with fair treatment of individuals and companies; the
third with the resources earmarked for customs services generally; and the
fourth with mail searches.
As was mentioned, the purpose of modernizing our
customs system is to expedite the movement of passengers. Another purpose is to
broaden accelerated licence programs, such as Canpass, so that companies
identified as being low risk can take advantage of reserved border crossing
lanes without having to undergo the usual questioning from customs
officers.
These two programs raise some very legitimate
concerns—and I think that after the events of September 11, we have a
responsibility to be concerned—about security. Furthermore, what regulations
will be introduced to provide a framework for putting these very laudable
principles into practice?
These regulations are extremely important. I know that
the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot raised this point on Friday;
unfortunately, the present Liberal government has a tendency to favour using
statutes as blank canvases for regulations, as the Minister of National Revenue
put it. The result is that parliamentarians are deprived of the full
information they need to make informed decisions.
(1255)
This case is no exception, since the number of
regulations set out in the act is not only significant in terms of numbers, but
also in terms of quality.
Clause 11.1 (3) reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make
regulations |
|
(a) prescribing classes of persons who may be authorized
to present themselves in alternative manners; |
|
(b) respecting alternative manners of
presentation; |
|
(c) respecting the requirements and conditions that are
to be met before authorizations may be issued; |
|
(d) respecting the terms and conditions of
authorizations; |
|
(e) respecting the amendment, suspension, renewal,
cancellation or reinstatement of authorizations; and |
|
(f) respecting fees or the manner of determining fees to
be paid for authorizations. |
As we can see, the bill sets out a principle, but we
know absolutely nothing, at this point in time, about how this principle will
be applied. What means will be used, what methods and criteria will determine
those who stand to benefit from this privileged treatment? Will these
regulations guarantee a high level of safety without compromising the steady
flow of trade that we require? We do not know this.
As long as we do not know this, we cannot comment on
the substance of the bill, despite the fact that we support the
principle.
It is the same thing when it comes to fairness. We know
that these accelerated permit programs will give the businesses that have
access to these permits an advantage over their competitors. We would not like
this system and these programs to become a new way to help friends of the
government. We would not want people to benefit enormously from this privilege,
because it is just that, a privilege, and not a right.
Once again, we need to know what criteria the
government will use to determine who will be eligible for these permits, and
who will not. As long as there are no regulations, we are unable to judge the
substance of the bill, again, even though we agree with the objectives being
pursued.
Therefore, if we do not have the regulations, we will
not be able to vote for the bill at third reading. As I mentioned earlier, the
minister himself described the bill as a blank canvas. We do not want a blank
canvas, we want the whole picture before agreeing to support bill
S-23.
Moreover, we are not the only ones to wonder about,
have concerns about, this blank canvas Bill S-23 represents. For example, Bob
Armstrong of the Canadian importers and exporters association, said the
following before the committee:
Although we are very supportive of
the concepts of the action plan, the association is not without its concerns
and reservations when it comes to the implementation of the programs, such as
the Administrative Monetary Penalty System, AMPS, and the Customs Self
Assessment initiative, CSA. There are inequities in the proposals that we have
seen so far and there is not yet an operating plan available to ascertain what
the actual impact of AMPS will be. There is much verbal discussion. Everything
is still in a draft format so we do not know entirely. |
That is exactly our impression today.
Also appearing before the committee was the president
of the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, who said:
There is still work to be done. We
must see the proposed regulations. We must better understand the systems
changes that will be used to monitor infractions and performance. |
That, I think, summarizes very well what we are asking
of the minister and the government. We need regulations so that we may have a
debate that is not only calm, but also democratic. Having only half or
one-quarter of the information will not let us get a proper idea of the effects
of this bill.
So, in order to have a clearer idea of the balance
between security and fluidity of exchanges, between equity and fluidity, we
want to see these regulations.
There was a third element, which I had mentioned at the
start, in addition to security and equity: the government's commitment to
injecting the necessary resources. Regardless of what the minister and the
government may feel, reorganization of the system, using new technologies and
pertinent information must not put us in a position where we cannot take
advantage of savings in injecting new financial and human resources in order to
ensure that our borders are indeed being respected, and our regulations and
legislation as well.
(1300)
Again, we are not the only ones to think so and I am
quoting Bob Armstrong, the President of the Canadian importers and exporters
association, who said:
Above all, what the Canadian business
world expects from a customs action plan is accuracy, simplicity and
profitability. |
We feel that these goals will be achieved in the long
term but, unfortunately, because of the lack of funding, this could take longer
than the agency thinks. This is our other message. We hope that in the future
the Government of Canada will provide adequate funding to its customs agency,
so that its productivity can be as high as possible.
We should get a commitment from both the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of National Revenue that the necessary resources to
implement the act--which we hope will be improved on--will indeed be provided
to ensure the administration of this legislation and the safety of Canadians
and Quebecers.
One last thing I mentioned at the beginning, along with
safety, fairness and the providing of the necessary resources, is the opening
of mail. This is not something new. We cannot support this part of the bill.
Last spring, when it was learned that employees at the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency were opening mail, it created an uproar in our democratic
society, and rightly so. At the time, the privacy commissioner even made the
following comment:
The fact remains that the opening up
and the reading of mail without a legal warrant or consent are violations of
privacy and are most disturbing. |
Canada is a free and democratic
country in which the opening up of our mail by the government is an extremely
strong symbolism. Therefore it must be used only with the greatest— |
(1305)
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan--Shuswap on
a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On an issue of
this importance I find it very strange that the House does not have
quorum.
The Deputy Speaker:
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker:
As we now have quorum, debate resumes.
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. I
am happy to see that not only can the number of loaves be multiplied, but that,
in the House, the number of Liberals can be multiplied.
I was mentioning a final aspect of the bill, which we
cannot support, and that is the examination of mail. I pointed out that the
privacy commissioner had intervened, last spring, to criticize this. The
current law permits the opening of mailings of over 30 grams in weight. Thirty
grams represents a few sheets of paper. This situation, as I indicated, has
already been criticized.
Instead of limiting the right of officials to conduct
such examinations, the bill intends to give customs officers greater
opportunities to open the mail of Canadians and Quebecers.
This amendment is found at clause 99.1 of the
bill:
(4) Subsection 99(1) of the Act is
amended by adding the following after paragraph (c): |
|
(c.1) at any time up to the time of exportation, examine
any mail that is to be exported and, subject to this section, open or cause to
be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds
contains any goods the exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or
regulated under any Act of Parliament, and take samples of anything contained
in such mail in reasonable amounts. |
As we can see, this significantly broadens the
procedure that already exists under the current act. When she testified before
the Senate committee, which was looking at this specific clause, the president
of the Canadian Bar Association, Mrs. Dumont, said:
We are very concerned by the
provisions of Bill S-23 that seek to significantly broaden the powers of the
government regarding the opening and examination of mail. More specifically, we
are concerned about the erosion of the right of Canadians to privacy and of
solicitor-client privilege. |
So, as I mentioned at the outset, we support in
principle the objectives of Bill S-23. However, we will not be able to support
it at third reading, unless a number of conditions are met, particularly as
regards the tabling of regulations that would allow us to get a better idea of
the balance between safety and the smooth movement of goods and people, so as
to be sure, upon looking at these regulations, that individuals and businesses
will be treated fairly and that we have a commitment on the part of the federal
government that adequate funding will be provided to the customs agency and,
finally, that the provisions allowing for the opening of mail will be
withdrawn.
Unfortunately, if these changes are not made, we will
have no choice but to vote against Bill S-23. However, I am convinced--and the
minister already seems to be receptive--that, by third reading, such
regulations will have been drafted and discussed, and the most problematic
aspects of the opening of mail will have been eliminated.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I get the impression from the member's
comments that his greatest concern about what is in the bill deals with the
issue of privacy. It does reflect on the content of the bill per se.
I am curious as to what the member might think about
the amendment that was put forward by the Alliance dealing with the issue of
terrorism and the freedom of movement between peoples south of the border. How
would he go about securing this continent in a way that would be acceptable to
Mexico, Canada and the United States?
(1310)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I
have not had an opportunity to examine the Alliance's amendments in
detail.
It is clear to us that we must work collectively to
find a balance between the security of Canadians and Quebecers crossing the
border and the necessary fluidity of commercial transactions.
In a context of free trade with the United States and
Mexico, if it were to take several hours or days to clear goods at the border,
we would lose the advantages these agreements were designed to
produce.
From this perspective, there is no easy solution. It is
also clear that this cannot simply be left up to the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency. There is a whole series of other conditions. The leader of the Bloc
Quebecois spoke about them during the special debate on the events of September
11. Canada in particular must assume its responsibilities with respect to world
peace and the development of underdeveloped, or developing, nations, and ensure
that the laws are actually respected.
With regard to the use of technologies, the bill
proposes that the necessary resources be made available to ensure that these
laws are respected. I think that the comments we have heard from those
representing groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or
exporters, indicate that, as we speak, we do not have the resources necessary
to enforce this law, even with all its shortcomings.
A law using additional new technologies and information
will require resources. In this regard, we are waiting for the government to
make a firm commitment during this debate.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's response to the
content of the bill. I will address my next question to one of his concern
about the bill and not the Alliance amendment. The Alliance amendment basically
deals with security matters.
In the member's comments he made reference to the
movement of manufactured goods between Canada and the United States. I have had
the opportunity, as have other members in the House, to examine how goods
actually move through the Canadian side to the American side of the border and
vice versa. The Americans have stepped forward with some very state of the art
detection equipment where they no longer need to tear everything apart inside a
container or a truck to see what is in it. They have a device that can x-ray
the truck to determine if it contains people, goods or other questionable
goods, such as drugs.
When I was last at the border it was with the member
for Wild Rose. We were very much aware that one in twenty trucks would be
checked at the border but when the line-up became too long some would not be
checked at all. They would just drive around checkpoints and away they would
go. There were times when the police would chase one or two of these units but
needless to say many got away without any check.
With the situation as it is today, with border security
tightening up, it is not necessarily tightening up for manufactured goods going
back and forth but for the threat of the wrong kind of people coming through
the border points. They may slip south or they may slip north. If we do not
deal with the security side of the matter our manufacturing side may get hurt
too because of long line-ups and the demand from our friends to the south for
restricting that movement until everything is checked to their satisfaction.
What should Canada do that would assist or augment what
exists presently in developing a better security arrangement to move
manufactured goods through that border point?
(1315)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette:
Mr. Speaker, I believe we agree on the objectives of
this bill in this connection.
Indeed, all shippers, all truckers, all manufacturers,
cannot be treated in the same way. Clearly, a number of them, because of their
past performance, their reputation, their credibility I would say, represent
less of a risk than others who are less well known, because they have been in
the business a shorter time or have had fewer contacts with Canada.
In my opinion, we cannot therefore be opposed in
principle to this idea of having a concentration of resources toward companies
or individuals which are considered to be a higher risk than others.
Now the question is whether we are going to
differentiate between a high risk company, a medium risk company and a low risk
one. While I agree in principle, I must say that I do not know the answer for
the moment, since we do not have the regulations.
It seems to me that if the minister's approach is a
serious one, he must introduce the mechanisms by which the department will
indeed determine this and the method it will use to ensure that companies or
individuals deemed to be low risk are indeed that—even if there will always be
a minimum of checks to be carried out at the border itself—and will be
differentiated from those of medium and high risk as far as security is
concerned—and I share the hon. member's concerns—but also as a matter of
equity.
A company that benefits from this special
border-crossing right will have a competitive advantage over another company.
This can become a very easy way to encourage undesirable illegal traffic. The
very principle of a bill that is aimed at risk management at source, that is
with the shipper, the manufacturer or the passenger, is an interesting one.
That said, as long as we do not have the regulations, the principle remains one
on which we cannot form an opinion.
That is why I have already said that, without the
regulations, we will not be in a position to vote in favour of Bill S-23 at
third reading.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Customs Act--Speaker's
Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Deputy Speaker:
Before we resume debate, I am now prepared to rule on a
point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons concerning the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill S-23,
an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts,
which is presently before the House.
The amendment, moved by the hon. member for
Edmonton--Strathcona, is in the form of a reasoned amendment. A reasoned
amendment, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page
638, is one which “--allows a member to state the reasons why he or she opposes
second reading of a bill--”.
Concerning such an amendment, Marleau and Montpetit
states further, at page 639, “It must be relevant and relate strictly to the
bill being considered”.
According to the summary of the bill, Bill S-23 seeks
in part to amend the Customs Act by “--providing for the expedited movement of
persons and goods into Canada--”.
The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona objects to the
second reading of the bill because, and I quote, “...the principle of the bill
fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's
borders with respect to terrorist activities”.
Marleau and Montpetit also states at page
639:
A reasoned amendment may be
declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy
or provisions of the bill... |
The Chair has examined the amendment very carefully in
the context of the purposes of the bill. I am satisfied that it does not
contravene any of our rules or the usual practice of the House with respect to
reasoned amendments. The amendment is in order.
(1320)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to hear that the
amendment is in order. I certainly hope members of the government will pay
close attention to the reasoning behind that.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-23 today. In
essence, there are some good aspects to the bill. Who could argue with measures
that would allow for pre-approval of travellers and reduction at the border of
waiting times for Canadian bound trucks. At the time of the production of the
bill, not a lot of people could, but that was prior to 9.30 a.m., September
11.
In light of these tragic events, the principle of the
bill fails to specifically and adequately address the national security at
Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.
The world as we know it has changed. The Liberal
government should be taking this time to revisit and review all its legislative
proposals. This has become the most important issue of our time.
I want to take a moment to thank our frontline customs
officers, especially those who, in the aftermath of September 11, have been
working around the clock, checking thousands of travellers seeking entrance
into Canada. They have done a tremendous job with limited human, technological
and financial resources. We really need to take a close look at what is going
on.
I had the pleasure of visiting a number of the ports of
entry across the western part of the country during the summer. The morale is
very low, and there are a lot of good reasons why it is.
I will give an example of a letter I received from one
of our frontline customs officers. He said “In light of the recent terrifying
events in the United States, I feel it is time that we demand my employer,
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, take the steps needed to equip me to do my
job. I am now more afraid than ever to do my job.
Allow me to explain the current law enforcement related
equipment that I have been issued. I have a pair of handcuffs and a bulletproof
vest. I need pepper spray, a baton, a sidearm to do my job properly and protect
the people of Canada and myself”.
He goes on to say “At present should I come into
contact with a violent subject, including one who is threatening my life, I am
to allow him to enter Canada and I am to contact the RCMP to deal with him or
her”. This has to be the most ridiculous instruction that has ever been given
to any law enforcement officer in history.
The letter continues “If at my location I release the
subject, the RCMP would never find him. They are too far away and are so poorly
staffed here there is no way they could contact the person. Furthermore, what
would the taxpaying public think if they found out that a customs inspector
just allowed a dangerous individual to come right into Canada, offering
absolutely no resistance whatsoever.
I feel that the problem with customs is that we are a
law enforcement agency being managed by people with no law enforcement
background. They are more concerned with image and public and business
convenience than they are law enforcement. We here are the front and the first
line of defence for Canada. I for one would like the equipment to do my job
with more competence”.
He continues on to say “If you would like examples of
the image statement, let me inform you of the following:
(1325)
Neither our shoulder patch nor our badge say officer or
inspector, they simply say, Canada Customs. Our bullet-proof vests have a
reflective strip on the back that also reads the same.
I looked at my U.S. counterparts this week during this
time of extra security and their vests read in bold print “Police U.S.
Immigration”. My silly lettering is a mere three quarters of an inch, a
stunning example of image”.
He went on to say: “Presently, our officers at large
ports have been issued pepper spray and batons, however, we at places where we
work alone have not been issued these tools. This is an example of the backward
thinking of the agency. They have issued the safety equipment to places where
there is always another officer available for assistance, however, where I work
alone, I am defenseless.
I would be happy to discuss this matter or any other
customs related matter with you at any time. Just a quick request though.
Please keep in mind that my agency is very heavily controlled by the Privacy
Act and we have been discouraged from speaking to members of parliament.
Please, in the interest of my career, could you please allow me my anonymity.
Unfortunately we work in an environment where speaking out is very strongly
discourage”.
At a time of this tragic event, the fellows and women
who put their lives on the line at the borders are being controlled. They are
being told not to talk to members of parliament, especially if they are from
the opposition or they will be in serious trouble. The same thing happens in
the penitentiaries with prison guards and security officers. They are told not
to not talk to MPs. They discourage that, especially if they are members of the
opposition because they might talk about the very things that this officer is
talking about.
Talk about low morale. He is fearful of losing his
career and being fired because he speaks out. These people who are on the front
line should be speaking out louder than ever.
I recall the visit the member for Calgary Northeast and
I had on a trip to Fort Erie on the border. We saw exactly what he was
referring to in terms of free flow of traffic. We remember him standing on the
edge of the bridge looking at the boats. We asked the officers what was in the
boats that kept coming to Canada. They did not know. However, they said that if
it looked a certain way it was probably cigarettes. If it looked another way it
was probably whiskey, or guns or it was smuggling people. They did not know
because they had no ability or resources to stop them and check to see what
they were bringing.
The member for Calgary Northeast and I saw with our own
eyes.
Who receives them when they land on the shores of this
great country? Nobody. When I went to certain border crossings and talked to
the customs officer, they said that. However, they said if I wanted to take a
trip with them, we could go 200 yards to the east or 200 yards to the west and
they could show me all kinds of trails of comings and goings because there were
no officers.
(1330)
The bill must not be brought forward at this time
because, as our amendment says, it is totally obsolete. It does not address the
needs of our time.
Last week the revenue and immigration minister
attempted to put a principled plan in place, but the Globe and Mail
published a confidential internal government bulletin issued to our border
guards regarding risk assessment. Instead of these ministers immediately
announcing an investigation was underway, they decided to waffle over the
political correctness of racial profiling, and the Globe and Mail was
busy defending its civil liberties. How can Canadians be confident that any
other confidential documents are not going to be leaked during this critical
time in our history?
There should have been an investigation announced
immediately regarding this confidential crisis type information being leaked.
We are talking about law enforcement. Maybe it is time
to take a look at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency bureaucracy and those
who work in it. They are not law enforcement officials. Perhaps this whole area
should be taken out of that portfolio and placed in the portfolio of the
solicitor general or justice department. They have the criteria and the
knowledge of law enforcement, whereas Customs Canada has no knowledge or
experience with it.
Why is Revenue Canada now suddenly the body of people
who will look after the major security of our country and our borders? I am
afraid it does not make a lot of sense to me.
I will speak about another decision the revenue
minister made this past week, which was a good one. The decision was made to
suspend the Canpass program for motorists, small planes and boats entering the
country. The program allowed prescreened motorists automatic border crossing
and the pilots of small planes to land at Canadian airports after reporting to
customs by telephone. The program was cancelled for security concerns. It will
not be long, though, before this program is back up and running. How can we
ever trust this honour system again?
Private aircrafts with less than 15 passengers are free
to land at any airport, without customs inspections, merely by calling a
central phone number to report their arrival. To make matters worse, the
itineraries of these planes are considered confidential information by NAV CAN.
Therefore, customs truly is working blind.
Does it honestly make sense to the minister of customs
that we do not search all international flights? This mindset has to change.
The world as we know it has changed.
Let me recount another story, with which I am sure most
members are familiar. It was a story in the Windsor Star of September
18. This is an example of how far we have to go. It states:
|
“Have
your ID ready”, Al Williams barked as the chartered bus emerged from the
Windsor-Detroit tunnel and approached the U.S. customs. |
|
Williams, a retired Daimler Chrysler worker, was looking forward to the Sept. 9
game between the Tigers and the Blue Jays at Comerica Park and he didn't want
some bozo who couldn't find his birth certificate making them late. |
|
He
needn't have worried. The bus, one of five chartered from Transit Windsor by
the CAW, wouldn't be going through the border routine so familiar to Windsor
residents. Step off. Show ID to the bored officer. Hop back on. Nope. There
would be no eyeball contact with a pistol-packing U.S. customs officer this
time. No contact, period. |
|
“Nobody came on board. The bus never stopped. They sailed right
through and went straight to Comerica Park. What the (heck) is going on
here?” |
(1335)
|
Williams had heard all the media chatter about erasing the border, but he
couldn't believe it had gone so far as the junking of all controls on entry to
the U.S. |
|
He
was especially intrigued because there were strangers on the bus who didn't
strike him as being either baseball fans or CAW retirees. Curious, he looked
for them at the ballpark. No sign of them. If they went to the game, they
didn't sit with the others. |
|
Two
days later our world was turned upside down with the terrorist assaults on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon and an angry Williams found himself
thinking about how a mere baseball ticket had been a hassle-free passport to
America. |
|
The
story doesn't end there. On the way back, several young males Williams had
never seen before pounded on the door of the bus as it neared the tunnel. The
door opened and they filed aboard. |
|
Back
in Windsor, A Canadian customs officer stepped up and asked if anyone was a
U.S. citizen. Nobody responded. The bus was waived through and as it left the
tunnel compound the young men were dropped off at their request on the nearest
street corner. |
|
The
incident left Williams scratching his head. How could the gatekeepers in both
countries be so lax? How could U.S. officials let people anonymously enter
America just because they have a baseball ticket? How could Canadian officials
let hitchhikers, who might or might not have been residents of Canada, enjoy a
free and unaccounted for ride into this country? |
In a lot of ways, both the U.S. and Canada have been
living in a fool's paradise. I do not intend to be a scaremonger, but I truly
believe the legislation must be reviewed and strengthened. This is a
pre-September 11 piece of legislation. This is a post-September 11 world and
the legislation must be changed quickly. It must reflect the need for top
security at our borders. It must be a high priority.
We have witnessed and felt the hurt of what can happen
with a group or network of people who have no regard for human life and who do
not really care about rules and regulations. For us to sit, be cautious and say
we must have a balanced approach is foolish. When we introduce legislation, the
security of the country must be a major component. We must equip the people who
guard our borders with the tools necessary to the job and remember that they
are a law enforcement agency. They are necessary to protect the lives, property
and welfare of all Canadians and we must treat them as such.
The day might come very soon when I will make some kind
a motion and recommend that the government pull this organization out of
Customs Canada and give it to a law enforcement agency that has some knowledge
of what we need to do. We need to stop treating them with kid gloves. We need
to stop looking for excuses and causes.
(1340)
In the war upon our neighbours to the south thousands
of lives have been lost. It is no time to sit around and be foolish with pieces
of legislation like the bill before us today.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member's words make me think of babies
and bath water.
He talked about one of the most successful borders in
the world. It has been in that position for decades and decades. It has been a
remarkably successful border not because there is barbed wire, trenches,
machine guns and minefields all along it, but because in a sense it has been
open.
The member spent all his time talking about arming the
police, meaning the customs officers, along the border. I do not want
undesirables coming into Canada and I do not want us to send undesirables to
the United States but to think of arming that wonderful productive border, it
has been productive in economic terms.
Think of how the two economies have benefited from the
border as it was. Think of how it has been in cultural terms, the exchanges,
what the Americans have gained from us and what we have gained from the
Americans culturally. Think what it would mean to a number of families. I would
guess there would be some families in this room, including my own, who have
relatives on the two sides of it. With reasonable security, over the years
those families have been able to visit each other, to go back and forth for
each other's Thanksgiving and that kind of thing.
I ask the member to think about this. These are very
difficult times. People in Canada and in the United States are facing very
difficult times. We are all upset. One of our jobs here is to show real
leadership, which brings me back to babies and bath water. Does the member
really want to throw the baby out with the bath water and make it a fortified
border, ruining commerce, and social and cultural exchanges, or does he want us
to proceed in some reasonable fashion? Let us by all means fill in the gaps,
the problems that exist, but let us hope that in the end it will stay the
largest unguarded frontier in the world.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, that does not surprise me at all coming
from that side of the House. The status quo seems to be satisfactory because it
has worked so well. I agree that before September 11 that was the case but
because of the events of September 11, it is now time to seriously look at what
we can do to secure our countries from terrorism. We need to keep up the flow
of trade and those things that have been so good for both countries for a long
time. My point is that this legislation will not do that. It is missing a very
important principle. It has not dealt with it at all.
I have crossed the border probably as often as if not
more than anybody. I lived 35 years in one country and then moved here. I am
glad that Canada is my home now. At the border I like to see things flowing
freely and with security. I would like to see the border as open as much as
possible. What does not make sense to me, and the member certainly did not
mention it, is what we will do in the meantime now that we know the
capabilities of terrorist organizations. They exist and they are a definite
threat to the innocent lives of thousands of people.
Is the member suggesting that we do not tighten up
things, that we do not listen and that we do not put a better defensive system
at the border? The guards themselves are asking for a better system.
Of course, the member probably does not know much about
law enforcement and he would not dare listen to someone who has done it for a
number of years. However, from his other comments it is easy to judge that he
must never have been confronted with having to enforce a law that is being
broken.
I am sorry but this is a time when we cannot play
Mickey Mouse and pussyfoot around with such an important issue. I would love to
see things flowing freely and openly at the border. However, we have to do a
better job of making sure that those who are coming into one country or the
other are not coming in for the purpose of destruction. We are not doing that
with the legislation that is before us today. Now is the day to do
it.
I can guarantee that the border points going south into
America have quickly changed in structure and attitude as a result of the
events of September 11. We need to see what is happening. We need to understand
why it is being done. We must break the network of terrorism in this world and
we must do it collectively. We can do it as long as the attitude that I just
heard changes to some degree, and it will have to, like it or not.
(1345)
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his comments.
It concerns me that if we continue with this reasonable approach to crossing
the border which we have historically been able to maintain, we are in danger
of losing the contacts in the United States that we already enjoy.
These people are serious. I look at the president of
the United States when he says that there is no room for negotiation and no
room for discussion on this issue. When the president says this is the way it
is going to be, I believe him. I believe he means what he says.
It seems to me that we do have some choices. I do not
want an armed border either. I enjoy freely crossing into the United States and
back again. I have always had that pleasure at the border. I want it
maintained. I want my colleagues in the House to know that.
It seems to me the choice is to be sure that nobody
goes into the United States who will harm the American people or they are going
to look after the job for us. It is going to be an armed border whether we like
it or not.
It seems we have a choice for our ports and airports
and those who would come in from other destinations outside North America. If
we can assure that those who come to our country can go to the United States
safely, our relations with the United States will be much simpler.
Having made those comments, I would like to ask the
member for Wild Rose for his comments about how he sees the necessity of
maintaining the security of Canada as well as the security of the United States
in our immigration or cross-border policies.
(1350)
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that a tragic event has to
make us all stop and think about the situation. If the government decides to be
firm and insists that for the safety and welfare of all citizens on both sides
of the border things are going to have to be toughened up, there will be things
we are not accustomed to in terms of policing our borders to protect people as
best we can. In order to accomplish that we have to reflect once again on the
tragic events of September 11. We must reflect on the determination, the
capability, the lack of care for human life that is obvious in the mind of a
terrorist. We must take all measures possible to stop a terrorist.
When I spoke about this the other day, what did I get
from a Liberal? He said that we have to be cautious and take a balanced
approach, that we need to get to the root cause. He said that we should not be
like the member for Wild Rose who wants to jump on his horse, grab a posse and
stamp them out.
If you suckers keep that attitude, I tell you, we will
be in a lot of trouble.
The Deputy Speaker:
To the member who last spoke, no one questions the
strong views that can be held on a very important subject as is being debated
in the House today. However, the member is a very experienced parliamentarian
and I know he would normally make all of his comments through the Chair. I
would seek his co-operation in being a little more judicious.
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair. I had a memory
lapse as to where I should direct my comments. I think those members know how I
feel about it and I will leave it at that.
The Deputy Speaker:
I thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his comments.
I am sure everyone knows how everyone else feels. Not to take anything away
from the importance of the subject matter, I will now resume questions or
comments.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I took note of the frontline research that
the member for Wild Rose did as far as our customs and border systems are
concerned. Over the past 15 years anyone taking a masters of business
administration at any good school of management would get into total quality
management. It states that if quality is improved then results are improved. It
involves having a system which is continuously improved to get better
results.
The system is improved by eliminating fear among the
frontline workers. Another way of getting continuous improvement is by getting
meaningful input from frontline workers. One thing that should not be done
under that theory is dictating or ordering results. Results have to be managed
and a team has to be in place to achieve that.
I detected a great deal of fear among our frontline
workers in the customs department. The fear goes so far that they feel they
cannot speak to a member of parliament about the problems they are
experiencing.
Any modern management system in the private sector
would say that these are signs of a system that is not working. It is based on
fear and commanding results, and it does not work.
If we want a quality system then we have to throw that
out and find a different way of doing things. This does not have the signs of a
quality system. Would the member for Wild Rose have any comments on that
matter?
(1355)
Mr. Myron Thompson:
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is certain. There
is fear in the people who work at our borders and in our security systems. I am
very proud of them and I take my hat off to them. When they explain to me the
difficulties they are facing I get vibes that their fear is not for themselves
but for the security of the country and its inhabitants. They are dedicated to
doing a job that they know has to be done.
They are simply asking to be listened to in terms of
how to do the best job they can. They are no longer interested in getting
guidelines and information sheets from bureaucracies that do not deal with
national security, law enforcement or those kinds of tools of the trade. It is
a revenue agency.
It is time to get some guidelines from those who work
in the field of law enforcement and national security. Let the guidelines come
from and work through them. They should be given the freedom to openly discuss
with members of parliament how they can best do their jobs and be allowed other
opportunities they may have.
It is shameful and discouraging that so many of the
people working at the ground zero level in our protection, security and customs
services are instructed not to speak with MPs, especially members of the
opposition. That is a crime in itself.
Statements by Members
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Home Children of
Canada
Mr. John Richardson (Perth--Middlesex,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the
House to commemorate the Home Children of Canada. The role of these special
children in building and shaping this great country of ours will never be
forgotten.
On August 19 the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of
Canada dedicated a plaque commemorating Canada's Home Children to the Annie
Macpherson Home at 51 Avon Street in Stratford.
While Home Children were sent to virtually every corner
of Canada, this Stratford home played a crucial role by receiving between 7,000
and 8,000 children.
In late 19th century Britain, cyclical unemployment and
chronic poverty had a profound impact on the urban industrial working class.
Families were forced to surrender some or all of their children to orphanages
and rescue homes. Many of these orphans were sent to Canada as Home Children.
The experience of these children has had a profound
impact in helping to change social policy in areas such as child welfare, child
labour and immigration. I am pleased to commemorate the Home Children of Canada
and acknowledge its national significance.
* * *
National Defence
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is meeting with
President Bush today. Let us look at what Canada can offer under a Liberal
managed military. The minimum number of troops the Americans would require is
5,000. Our army has not practised at that level in over nine years. The
Department of National Defence said it would take at least three months to
deploy and we cannot even sustain these numbers for longer than six months in
the field.
Our airlift capability deployment is quoted as a near
catastrophe by our own defence people. Nineteen of our thirty-two C-130
transports are 35 years old and in need of replacement. The navy has one
functional support ship that it can send out. Due to our losses of manpower
only seven can be sent out at any one time.
Our Sea King helicopters are 35 years old and falling
out of the sky. Most of our CF-18 fighters are obsolete and cannot integrate
with the American air force.
Nearly 40 Canadians died in the tragedy in the United
States but our government has gutted the military and our ability to protect
ourselves here and abroad.
* * *
(1400)
Richard Jaroszonek
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Richard Jaroszonek of Peterborough
died recently in a highway accident. Dr. J., as he was known, was a fine
surgeon who was a beloved member of our community. He was a physician who took
a personal and compassionate view of all his patients. The whole community
misses him.
Dr. J. was born in the United Kingdom and graduated
from the University of Toronto. He practised in Peterborough for more than 20
years. He was well liked and professionally admired by his colleagues. This is
a great loss to our Peterborough medical system.
Our condolences go to Nancy, their children and other
members of Dr. J.'s family. We want them to know that the entire community is
thinking of them and praying for them at this difficult time.
* * *
[Translation]
Softwood Lumber
Mr. Guy St-Julien
(Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, currently, France Gagnon, the CEO of
Précibois, a family business in Barraute, in the great Abitibi region, is very
concerned about the U.S. decision to impose harsh measures on her
company.
As in the case of previous trade dispute over softwood
lumber, it was vital that countervailing measures be applied to the primary
mill price.
The U.S. decision to impose this measure on the last
mill rate means that the unsubsidized remanufacture sector is hit first and
hardest. If this measure remains, the industry could disappear.
For the good of the managers and forestry workers of
this fine business, the Minister of International Trade must have this value
added sector excluded from the trade dispute immediately.
* * *
Canadian Forces
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to draw the attention of
the House to the Canadian Forces' parliamentary program, developed by the
Minister of National Defence and aimed at making elected representatives aware
of the day to day experiences of the military.
In early July, I had the opportunity to take part in
the training given the soldiers of the 3rd battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment
based at Valcartier in preparation for an upcoming mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina.
[English]
By this visit I was able to notice the high level of
satisfaction of the troops and their officers toward their lifestyle in
general. This is the direct consequence of a $3 billion investment from the
Canadian government in the national defence department in the past three
years.
[Translation]
Throughout its history, Canada has carved an enviable
place for itself internationally through its leadership in humanitarian
aid.
Despite the very singular nature of last week's events
in the United States, I believe the Canadian Forces will carry out this sort of
a mission worthily if called on to do so.
I am proud of what our fellow citizens, the military,
do here in Canada and internationally.
* * *
[English]
International Aid
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it has been noticed that the government is
contributing $1 million to the UN High Commission for Refugees to assist
refugees from Afghanistan. The question to CIDA is how and where will the UN
spend this money? The government must be cautious as to where the money goes.
Did CIDA discuss with the UN how it would disburse this assistance?
This is the time to seize the opportunity to develop a
comprehensive social and economic assistance package for our central Asian
allies. It is in the interests of the free world that we eliminate the breeding
ground for terrorism. We notice that the U.S. has rescheduled its loans to
Pakistan and lifted sanctions on India and Pakistan, which is a welcome
development.
We stress the need for a comprehensive, long term
social and economic assistance package for our central Asian allies.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, September 11 will remain in our minds
forever. We will remember where we were and what we were doing. I was
privileged to be at CFB Trenton and to see firsthand the speed and
professionalism of our Canadian forces.
During the first hours the command centre went into
operation in preparation for any possible situation that might occur. Base
security was increased. Our DART team went into a high state of readiness to
respond to whatever task it was given.
Extra air and maintenance crews were brought in. Planes
were readied and moved to strategic locations. The family resource centre
prepared for extra child care services to accommodate military families whose
shifts had been increased or changed.
On Wednesday I accompanied a Hercules to Halifax which
was loaded with cots and blankets for those who would find themselves stranded
in locations they never planned to be.
I was very proud to be a Canadian while watching our
Canadian forces hard at work. This was not a drill. This was reality and they
were ready.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Lumber
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the lumber issue requires a constant show
of solidarity by all the parties concerned. A whole segment of our economy
depends on it. Quebec's 1,318 sawmills and 40,000 forestry workers could be
financially affected by the situation.
Until the final ruling is issued by the appeal body to
cancel the unjustified retroactive duties of 19.3%, workers want assurances,
for them and their families, that minimal protection will be provided during
additional unemployment periods in forestry regions.
The federal government must follow up on the unanimous
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities, so as to correct the employment insurance program
and give it back its primary role of providing an income during periods of
unemployment.
I say to the Minister of Human Resources Development,
the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister that they must
urgently take action on these unanimous recommendations, so as to contribute in
a concrete fashion to the maintaining of the solidarity that will allow us to
get justice for the whole lumber industry in Quebec and in Canada.
* * *
Prostate Cancer
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay
(Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for men, prostate cancer is the second
most common type of cancer and the second leading cause of death by cancer.
However, a recent discovery, made possible by funding
from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, is raising hopes in the fight
against this disease.
A team led by Dr. Jacques Simard from Laval
University's CHUL research centre, and Dr. Johanna Rommens, from the Toronto
Hospital for Sick Children, recently discovered a gene that causes prostate
cancer.
This discovery is important because it is difficult to
determine the specific genes that are responsible for diseases such as prostate
cancer. While it is still too early to develop a genetic test to detect
prostate cancer, this discovery will provide the key element for early
diagnosis and a more appropriate treatment. It is a first step toward similar
discoveries.
Drs. Simard and Rommens are true Canadian heroes. I am
proud to be a member of a government that not only had the insight of
establishing a body such as the CIHR, but also pledged in the throne speech to
significantly increase its funding.
Investing in research today will make all Canadians
benefit tomorrow.
* * *
[English]
National Security
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton
Centre-East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the flags have just been raised and the
mourning called to an official end by the president of the United States to
show terrorists that America is again at work. From the half-mast of sorrow,
the world's efforts now turn to the resolve of war on terrorists, but what
lessons have we learned from our past?
For years we have called on the government to
strengthen Canada's armed forces, to make safer our porous borders from
terrorists, and to make immigration more attainable to those who will abide by
our laws rather than to the lawless.
Today Canada's security suffers from years of neglect.
I call on the government to act today to set up a Canadian ministry of homeland
security to demonstrate the will to improve our national security and to
standardize North America's security efforts to erase the belief that Canada is
North America's weakest link.
* * *
Pesticide Awareness
Day
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in June the Supreme Court of Canada ruled
in favour of municipalities and their powers to ban the spraying of pesticides
for cosmetic purposes. To celebrate this landmark decision a pesticide
awareness day will take place tomorrow in room 200 of the West
Block.
Citizens' groups, environmental and public health
organizations and interested parliamentarians will discuss their experiences of
pesticide use reduction. Displays and exhibits are part of the program. Organic
food will be served. Speeches starting at 6 p.m. will include an award ceremony
in honour of the town of Hudson's pioneer role in banning pesticides.
Tomorrow's event aims also at reminding the government of the urgent need for a
bill to amend the Pest Control Products Act, now over 30 years old.
All parliamentarians and the public are invited to
participate in tomorrow's day of celebration on the Hill.
* * *
Airline Safety
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate a story to the
House of Commons about something that happened to me this morning and to my
leader as well.
We waited in an airport security lineup for over 30
minutes for dangerous articles such as nail clippers to be removed, boarded our
aircraft and had a wonderful breakfast. They gave us a serrated knife to cut
our eggs and our meat. Surely there is a bit of hypocrisy here in terms of our
airline security.
The United States has moved very quickly to remove all
metal cutlery from all aircraft within its borders. We in Canada, due to the
circumstances of September 11, should take all precautions necessary and remove
immediately from our aircraft any metal cutlery or metal objects that could
pose any hazard to passengers.
As well, we call upon the government to take over
complete control of pre-flight screening for boarding in every airport
throughout the entire country as well as to initiate a process whereby all
cargo and baggage is thoroughly x-rayed and reviewed before it goes onto the
aircraft.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
The Taliban
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan took
over the offices of the United Nations in Kandahar, in the southern part of the
country, and seized all of the UN's communications equipment in Kabul, on
Friday. While some of the UN's activities have been maintained, most of them
have been disrupted or stopped.
According to a UN spokesperson, the Taliban also took
over the offices of certain non-governmental organizations in Kandahar and
uttered death threats to the employees found on site.
Such acts of aggression must be considered as attacks
against the entire international community. These attacks heighten the climate
of uncertainty and tension that exists in the region.
We condemn the Taliban action, as this hateful
behaviour toward NGOs will diminish the services to local populations that are
already so poor.
* * *
[English]
National Defence
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa
West—Nepean, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening I had the privilege of
attending a reunion of World War II veterans of the First Infantry Regiment of
the Royal Canadian Engineers. These are our troops who worked so valiantly on
the front lines to lead our troops to victory in two great wars and in many
fields of conflict since.
Also present were three young men of today's generation
of military engineers. Soon they too may be asked to risk the supreme sacrifice
in defence of freedom and democracy to do battle against an enemy of
unspeakable evil and brutality. Already their families live with fear and
uncertainty of what may lie ahead for their sons and daughters.
I know I speak for all of us and for all Canadians in
saying to our men and women of the Canadian forces and to their families and
loved ones that we salute them, that they are our heroes and may God protect
them.
* * *
Terrorism
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, one week ago today we set aside the
business of the House to engage in a debate over the terrorist attacks on the
United States and what impact those attacks would have on Canada.
A week has passed and Canadians still do not have any
meaningful information as to what is specifically being done or planned to
protect the lifestyle that we all enjoy and cherish. Among Canadians there is
real angst about what the future holds. There is uncertainty, confusion, anger,
anxiety and fear. Canadians want to protect the rights and choices that we
enjoy as a democracy. That includes our democratic right to ask questions of
our government.
The government has accused opposition parties of trying
to score political points but since when is asking questions unpatriotic? If
the government was willing, it could put an end to the questions and
speculation by being more forthright with Canadians. President Bush
demonstrated this resolve last week in his address to the nation, which leaves
me and millions of Canadians wondering if some of that resolve will rub off on
our Prime Minister following his visit to Washington today.
* * *
Prostate Cancer
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that there is
renewed hope today in the struggle against prostate cancer. As a result of
funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, a team of researchers
recently discovered a gene that leads to prostate cancer. This is a significant
breakthrough that will lead to further discoveries in the struggle against a
disease that is the second leading cause of cancer deaths.
The government would like to congratulate Dr. Jacques
Simard of Laval's Centre de recherche du Pavillon CHUL and Dr. Johanna Rommens
of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children for their significant contribution to
health research in Canada.
I am pleased to see such positive results of government
support for programs such as the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research.
With the earliest diagnosis and more targeted treatment
that such discoveries lead to, we will see a healthier future for all
Canadians.
* * *
(1415)
Terrorism
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, while grieving over thousands of
individuals tragically murdered in terrorist attacks September 11, Canadians
also feel some economic insecurity.
North Americans finally seem aware that security at our
borders must be tightened and terrorists and their fronts already within our
borders must be stopped.
One major company has said it will build in the U.S.
and not in Canada due to new difficulties of getting people and goods across
the Canada-U.S. border. Trucks carrying freight commercially in Canada now face
very long lineups at the border. Since trucks haul about 64% by value of
Canada's total trade with the U.S., such delays are already causing plant
closings.
To improve public safety and preserve Canadian jobs, it
is imperative that Canada, in co-operation with our U.S. neighbours,
immediately increase our border security resources in manpower and technology
and move toward the North American perimeter approach as advocated by U.S.
ambassador Paul Cellucci.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, earlier today U.S. President George Bush
announced that he is launching a financial offensive in the fight against
terrorism. The Americans have announced that they have frozen the assets of
Osama bin Laden as well as those of other terrorist leaders, organizations and
their charitable and fundraising support groups.
Canadians are wondering if the government is prepared
to join in this first offensive of the war against terrorism by seizing the
financial assets of these and other types of terrorist groups and organizations
in Canada.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of being able to seize these
assets, we are looking at the possible legal routes that might be taken. We
have already undertaken those investigations, but I would remind hon. members
of the House that we have already acted on the Afghan resolutions of the
security council when we passed regulations in parliament on February 22 of
this year allowing the seizure of all assets related to Osama bin Laden and any
of his entities or associates.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, possible other legal routes as the
minister said, that is called legislation. That is what we need regardless of
the UN resolution.
President Bush has also confirmed that two dozen
different terrorist organizations connected to bin Laden are operating in North
America. The security sources have already told Canadians that al-Qaeda, Armed
Islamic Group and al-Jihad, all groups named by President Bush today, are
operating in Canada.
Will the government move to ban these organizations and
freeze their assets immediately? It has to be done right away.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with our fight against the
use of terrorist funds, last Friday OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, sent a notice to all our institutions urging the
co-operation of our financial institutions in this fight against terrorist
money, naming the organizations that they were to go after.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the
Opposition, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we are asking the government for
legislation, not friends to send notes urging them to do something.
[Translation]
The Minister of Justice says it is highly unlikely that
her new legislation will name and outlaw terrorist organizations. But the
United States has just specifically targeted certain organizations and
individuals.
Is this government prepared to do the same
thing?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have already held discussions with the
agency with respect to money laundering. They are in the process of drawing up
amendments that will accomplish precisely what is being asked.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, for years we have stood in the House
asking the solicitor general to give CSIS and the RCMP the tools they need to
protect Canadians, to protect them from all threats, including chemical and
biological threats. CSIS has told us of the risk. The RCMP has told us of the
risk.
I ask the solicitor general, why has he failed to act
on the very report that he commissioned?
(1420)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is referring to a report
that was put together and written by my department. It was put together in
order to make sure that the provinces, all municipalities and people who are
directly responsible are prepared.
What we want to do is make sure that the systems are in
place in order to deal with such events, and we took the lead to make sure that
would happen, as we should.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, he is correct. He did commission the
report. The department brought the report forward but he has yet to adopt
it.
In April of this year the solicitor general was told by
CSIS that Canada is not prepared for any terrorist attack. The report
recommended that the government develop better threat assessment and
intelligence capabilities.
Why is the solicitor general failing to respond to the
very report that he commissioned?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said last Friday in the House, we
have a national counterterrorism plan in place. That plan is in place so that
the federal government, provincial governments and municipal governments in any
cities that need to be involved are involved.
We are making sure the proper procedures will be in
place if they should need to be.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister stood beside
President Bush and reminded people that terrorism is a problem faced by all
countries of the world and that it is therefore necessary to work toward the
creation of an international coalition to fight terrorism.
Could the government tell us what specifically Canada
has done to ensure that the international anti-terrorism coalition is as broad
as possible?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have certainly consulted, I with my
counterparts and the Prime Minister with other heads of government, in the
various regions of the world, including the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the
Americas, to ensure that the coalition is as broad as possible.
What needs to be understood is that this is a coalition
to combat terrorism using various means.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe
(Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the United States and Great Britain have
begun to take military action. A British commando unit has gone into
Afghanistan and at least one U.S. spy plane has been shot down by the Taliban
forces. Even President Bush's security adviser admits that the campaign has
already begun.
Given the American and British military operations now
under way in Afghanistan, what has the government done to ensure UN involvement
in the fight against terrorism, something the Prime Minister indicated he would
like to see?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the leaders of European nations noted
on Friday, the United Nations Security Council has already issued a statement
citing article 51 of the United Nations Charter. There is already a basis in
international law for the actions the United States will be taking.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this morning President Bush announced that
the assets of terrorists would be seized in the United States. No financial
transactions would be possible.
I have a memo here from the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada. There is reference to
co-operation in the area of information sharing. The banks are being asked to
release information to the FBI investigators.
Since the announcement by U.S. president goes far
beyond that, I am asking the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions
whether we are going to go as far as the United States is, that is to block
transactions and seize assets, or will we merely co-operate in
investigations?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are going to propose
amendments in order to attain the goal the hon. member has referred
to.
I must also state, however, that with Bill C-24, which
is before the Senate at this time, the possibility exists to do exactly the
same thing with the proceeds of crime and also to promulgate and implement in
Canada declarations from other countries in the world without the process
taking place here in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, there is also one other important point in
the statement by President Bush in connection with foreign banks refusing to
co-operate in this financial war against the terrorists. President Bush said
these foreign banks would also be banned from the U.S. market.
I would like to know from the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions whether unco-operative foreign banks would be banned
from carrying out transactions in Canada as well.
(1425)
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions), Lib.):
Precisely, Mr. Speaker. There is a prohibition in place
with the resolutions concerning Afghanistan. We have already brought in
regulations here in Canada, in other words we are able to obtain and seize all
assets of bin Laden and all of his colleagues.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has received a letter
from Geoffrey Pearson, distinguished diplomat, president of the United Nations
Association in Canada and son of Lester Pearson.
It reminds the Prime Minister that under international
law no country or group of countries has the right to retaliation or vengeance.
Chapter 7 of the UN charter requires that any action affecting peace and global
security be taken under the auspices of the United Nations.
Could the foreign affairs minister assure the House
that the Prime Minister has forcefully presented that point of view to
President Bush in Washington today?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member took note of what
the European Union itself declared last Friday in considering the legal
framework within which any response might be launched and recognizing both the
security council resolution of September 12 together with article 51 of the UN
charter which enables states to act in self-defence.
I am sure that in recognizing the numerous deaths that
occurred on September 11 in the United States she will appreciate that the
president understands fully not only the legal consequences of what he does but
the legal framework within which he must act.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the foreign affairs minister once
again what Mr. Pearson has said in his letter, that there should be no rush to
judgment, no massive retaliation which would target innocent civilians of any
country, and that all nations of the world must work together to identify the
perpetrators and bring them to justice; in other words, work through the United
Nations.
Why is the government not respecting international law
and living up to our reputation as true internationalists?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member's preamble but not
with her question. We not only have been urging for but we have seen a massive
multilateral response to the tragedies that occurred on September 11. We have
seen the building of a coalition involving countries, not just members of NATO
but members of the OAS, the European Union, Arab countries, Muslim countries
and Asian countries, all together saying that what the world needs is a
campaign against terrorism.
We cannot allow events like we saw on September 11 to
happen again. We must do everything in our power to stop it.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting prime
minister. When the terrorist leaders are clearly identified, the challenge will
be to have those persons tried under a system of justice that is trusted by the
nation which suffered the attacks.
Countries harbouring terrorists may be reluctant to
release them to the United States. Did the Prime Minister propose today
alternate arrangements that would allow American law to apply in an acceptable
third country? That was done when the accused Lockerbie terrorists were tried
by Scottish law in Holland.
Is the Prime Minister making practical proposals like
that which might produce the terrorists and perhaps avoid a military
strike?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, certainly all options including the
possibility of justice being sought in jurisdictions other than the United
States are being considered by those involved.
At the same time it must be pointed out that Mr. bin
Laden was already under indictment by the United States prior to September 11
for previous incidents and that the United States itself has suffered a
grievous loss as a result of the events on September 11. I think in the first
instance it will be seeking to see a trial of those responsible held on its own
soil.
(1430)
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, the question was whether the Prime
Minister had proposed an initiative. I guess the answer to that is he did
not.
In the United States democracy was struck directly by
these attacks. The president immediately involved the leadership of America's
political parties. The elected members of the U.S. senate and congress were put
to work immediately, devising better ways to protect aircraft, tighten security
and fight terrorism.
In Canada no committees of the House of Commons have
been allowed to work on those issues. When the Prime Minister reports here
tomorrow, as I trust he will, will he act also to let Canadian MPs get to work
immediately against terrorism?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the right hon. member can
make that assertion in the House. It seems to me that members on both sides
have been preoccupied with this question for the last seven days. In fact we
have had three days of debate.
I do not know whether this is a problem that is
peculiar to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre or is a general problem. I
would think that it is the former.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on September 11 Canadian authorities
arrested an individual with three false Yemeni passports on an airliner
diverted from a flight to the United States. Charges have been filed against
him in Chicago.
Is the minister able to assure us that she is able to
move quickly to extradite this foreign national so that he can appear before
the American courts to answer these charges?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if the
United States of America makes a formal extradition request we will move on
this matter as quickly as possible under the existing extradition laws of this
country.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, is it not amazing that she can give us
that assurance when she has never been able to act on any of the other
thousands of requests?
Will the minister admit that she cannot rid Canada of
foreign terrorists and criminals because she has consistently ignored her
responsibility to provide Canadians with a secure and effective system to
extradite these individuals?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in fact we enacted new extradition laws
just two years ago in this country, ensuring that our extradition laws are some
of the most effective, modern extradition laws in the world.
I can assure the hon. member that if we get a formal
request of extradition from the United States of America that request will be
acted upon with alacrity.
[Translation]
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the United States immediately established
an emergency fund of $40 billion, part of which will be used to support the
anti-terrorism campaign following the attacks on the World Trade
Center.
Canada must take part in this anti-terrorism campaign,
to the best of its abilities. Will the Minister of Finance tell us how much
money he expects to spend to cover the costs of the military and security
operations that Canada may be called upon to take part in as a member of the
anti-terrorism coalition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the member must know that not all of the
costs are known yet, neither the costs that we will incur here in Canada to
protect national security, nor the costs involved in the international fight
against terrorism. The United States and other countries have not yet given us
an idea of the scope of what they have in mind.
That being said, I can assure the member that we have
sufficient reserves set aside. In fact, I am able to give an example. In
response to a request by the Minister of Transportation last Saturday, the
government was able to help air carriers with their insurance.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance himself mentioned
the possibility of a deficit, which he indicated that he would try to avoid, as
much as possible.
Given this statement, will the minister tell us how
much he has budgeted, in a preliminary manner, to deal with the costs of
Canada's announced participation in the anti-terrorism campaign that is about
to begin?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we will do
everything possible to avoid a deficit.
That being said, I can also state that we will allocate
the necessary funds for national security.
* * *
(1435)
[English]
National Security
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know what special
emergency funding will be made available to help Canadian forces make a
meaningful commitment to fight against terrorism along with our NATO allies and
to improve homeland security in Canada.
Could the Minister of National Defence explain to
Canadians any emergency measures he has taken to help improve our military
contribution to the fight against terrorism and to improve homeland
security?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the response the Minister of
Finance just gave deals with the question of funding. Certainly every measure
that needs to be taken is being taken and is being reviewed extensively in view
of what happened on September 11.
We want to make sure that Canadians are safe and
secure. It is not just the Department of National Defence, but the solicitor
general is the holder of the counterterrorism plan with participants in that
counterterrorism plan as well. Safety and security are foremost for Canadians,
foremost for the government.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that the minister cannot
point to a single concrete measure he has taken to help improve homeland
security in Canada or to help with our contribution to NATO.
The most likely contribution Canada will make will be
our lead force, the JTF2, which totals 250 members. Will the Minister of
National Defence tell Canadians whether he will keep enough members of the JTF2
in Canada in case of some event such as a hijacking or a hostage
taking?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, not only is that shameful fearmongering,
but at the same time in the interests of national security we will certainly
not divulge a lot of that kind of information to the benefit of people who
could use it against us.
I am reminded of the words of President Bush earlier
today when he said to the Prime Minister, and I think it applies here, it
applies to the Alliance, “I guess somebody is playing politics with you, Mr.
Prime Minister”. I suggest those who try to play politics with my words drive
wedges between Canada. We understand now is not the time for
politics.
* * *
[Translation]
National Defence
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the military operations in which Canada
would participate in Afghanistan, alongside with the anti-terrorist coalition
forces, could require the deployment of a number of troops.
However, the Canadian army is limited in terms of the
personnel available.
Can the minister tell us if, in the various scenarios
being considered, it is possible that Canadian troops already taking part in
peacekeeping missions might be recalled to take part in military action in
Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is always a possibility. Various
options are possible. Canada does not have the size of the military of the
United States. Nor does any other country, for that matter, but we could make a
significant contribution if we were called upon to do so.
There have not been any decisions made about specific
military action. The United States has prepositioned some of its troops but has
made no decision about military action at this point in time.
As I have said time and time again, ultimately this
will not be won as much by military action as it will be by a number of other
measures in the fight against terrorism.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given the limited numbers of our personnel
in the regular armed forces, is the Minister of National Defence now thinking
about calling up reservists to have the necessary personnel for a possible
participation in the international anti-terrorist coalition?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National
Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again no specific military action has been
designed. We have not been asked by the United States that is leading the
planning effort to provide any specific troops.
We have a number of capabilities, niche capabilities.
We can make a significant contribution if need be. We could also make a
significant contribution on the diplomatic front and on the economic front in
terms of what is being done to cut off the funds that go to terrorists.
We have significant influence through the Commonwealth
and francophonie which the Prime Minister can help bring to bear on this whole
issue. There are a lot of different ways we can fight terrorism.
* * *
Airline Safety
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, since the September 11 terrorist attack on
the United States, Canadian airport security has been beefed up. While
Canadians may need to be reassured at the current time, many feel that this
heightened security may fade just as it did following the Air India 182 and Pan
Am 103 bombings.
Could the Minister of Transport tell this House that
the current security measures, contrary to the message being sent in his own
department's website, will remain in place and how the increased security costs
will in fact be financed?
(1440)
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that what happened on
September 11 will change the nature of air travel and our deportment across the
country when we travel. That is why these measures that we have announced will
be in force indefinitely.
We believe that there should be more enhanced measures.
I hope to be announcing enhanced measures as the days go ahead. As to the cost,
I think it is more important to deal with the security at this time rather than
worry about the cost.
Mr. James Moore (Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the recent terrorist attacks on the United
States greatly affected the airline industry in business interruption costs, a
decline in consumer confidence and the added price of increased security. The
government has also decided to cover the industry's war and terrorism insurance
costs and is considering a huge bailout of Air Canada. Apparently the transport
minister has seen new budget numbers from the finance minister that the rest of
the country has yet to see.
The Prime Minister has said that committees are where
these important questions are to be answered but the House has been in session
for a full week and the committees have not been struck yet. Given the grave
nature of the serious issues that this country has to address, why is that the
case?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I hate to remind the hon. member of the
rules of this House, but when parliament is reconvened in September, after 10
days the committees must be re-struck. Our party intends to co-operate with all
other parties in the House for a rapid re-start of the committees pursuant to
our rules, the standing orders of parliament.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor
general.
Last Thursday the hon. member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, perhaps inadvertently, distorted my position
and that of Mr. David Harris, a former CSIS employee, on the matter of a
foreign intelligence agency for Canada. Both Mr. Harris and I have called for a
public discussion on Canada's future intelligence needs.
Could the solicitor general offer any comments with
respect to the need for a more public dialogue on security and intelligence
issues?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon.
colleague from Nepean--Carleton. As I said before in this House a number of
times, CSIS does operate abroad. CSIS investigates threats to Canada's security
inside and outside of this country.
On the other question, I can assure him that this
government and myself certainly welcome any suggestions that would help in the
long term or short term response to the horrible events of September
11.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for
International Cooperation.
As the minister knows, millions of Afghani citizens are
fleeing both from the terror of the Taliban regime and in fear of a possible
United States bombing. The United Nations has appealed for a humanitarian
coalition to help these desperate people.
I want to ask the minister what action our government
is taking to urge neighbouring countries not to seal their borders to these
desperate people, and will we be committing significantly increased resources
beyond the $1 million that was committed last week to these people?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the atrocities that are happening are
horrific. I immediately announced, as the hon. member said, $1 million to the
call of the UNHCR to assist with refugees that are amassing in Pakistan. As
well, we are in contact at all times with our partners. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees has written us a letter to thank us for being the
first country to respond. We talk with him on a regular basis and of course we
will be looking at increases as the need arises.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
U.S. senator Jesse Helms, the ranking Republican on the
foreign affairs committee, said yesterday that the United States is very close
to a military attack on Iraq, whose people are already suffering of course from
sanctions and from bombing. I want to ask whether Canada will speak out
strongly against any such attack. Will this minister assure the House that
before any Canadian troops are committed to a response to the September 11
terrorist attacks there will be not just a debate but a vote in this House of
Commons?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, generally, unlike the hon. member, I do
not take my information from Jesse Helms. That is an interesting theory that he
is proposing.
The hon. member should know that we have certainly
raised with the U.S. administration our concern that whatever action is taken
with the very carefully constructed coalition, including Arab and other
countries, that has been put together for this campaign against terrorism, it
is not jeopardized.
He knows that we will always consult parliament before
we dedicate military resources.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Health
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Canadian Medical
Association released a report showing that it is in the field of specialty care
that Canadians are having the greatest difficulty obtaining the services they
so badly need.
Rather than launching a royal commission of inquiry, or
another human resources study, when will the federal government take specific,
ongoing and verifiable action to address the real weaknesses in the health care
system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we already took such action one year ago.
We substantially increased annual cash transfers so that the provinces could
put the necessary changes in place.
Tomorrow, I intend to meet with my counterparts in
Newfoundland, and we are going to continue to work together to improve the
health care system throughout Canada.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Medical
Association Canada lags far behind most OECD countries in accessibility to
necessary medical technology.
Our country now ranks 14th of 18 countries in terms of
access to CT scanners. We also rank 14th in terms of access to MRIs. It is just
unacceptable.
Will the minister table a report in the House detailing
how the $1 billion in the health technology fund has been spent and why it is
that critical shortages continue to plague the delivery of specialty medical
care here in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member for the
question. In fact one of the items that I have asked the provincial ministers
to address tomorrow is just exactly how they have spent the billion
dollars.
I wrote to them some months ago and I asked them to let
me know so that we can report to the public what has been done with the money.
I can tell the member I will happily table with the
House information I get from provincial ministers about how they have met this
responsibility for making high tech equipment available to Canadians in our
health care system.
* * *
Immigration
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the immigration
minister.
The government's own backbench MPs recommended that all
surprise refugee claimants be detained either until they are accepted as
legitimate or deported.
Why did the minister refuse to accept the
recommendation of her own backbench in the writing of Bill C-11?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we were very clear in Bill C-11 and we
have the tools in order to detain wherever we are unsure of anyone's identity,
wherever we believe there is a fear of flight or, most important, where we feel
there is a security risk.
We can and we do detain whenever we believe that
someone falls into any of those three categories, but particularly if they pose
any security risk to Canada we detain and we argue for continued
detention.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I think the immigration minister is
overselling the merits of Bill C-11.
The American ambassador told us all this week that no
nation can be sovereign without being secure. The minister knows that her own
department has really failed on that score.
Why is the government not taking a leadership role in
either meeting or exceeding American or other countries' refugee screening
standards?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I reject completely the assumption in the
member's question. I would also suggest that he look at the facts.
The facts are that Bill C-11 streamlines our ability to
process applications. What we want to do is make sure that anyone who is in
genuine need of protection is offered assistance in Canada as soon as possible,
but for those who are not genuine refugees, for those who pose a risk to
Canada, they will not be given access. Canada's refugee determination system is
considered a model for the world.
* * *
[Translation]
The Acadians
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
said, on the weekend, in Bathurst, that the government would probably not
support Motion M-241, which calls for an apology from the British crown for its
treatment of the Acadians.
How can the minister subordinate the importance of such
a motion for the Acadians to the affiliation of its mover, my colleague from
Verchères-les-Patriotes?
(1450)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can do no better than to quote the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche:
The introduction of M-241 is further
testimony to the paternalistic, offensive, insulting and hurtful attitude of
the separatists in the Bloc. Acadians form a dynamic community, proud of its
roots and open to the future. We need no self-proclaimed guardian. |
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this motion received the support of, among
others, the member for Acadie--Bathurst, the Société des Acadiens and the
Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick.
How does the minister explain his lack of openness to
the consensus of the Acadians.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to that I think the Minister of Labour has
provided a fine answer “I never want to see Acadians used as political pawns.
No one, least of all the separatists, is going to play games with the Acadian
culture”.
* * *
[English]
Terrorism
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has launched a resolute offensive
against the terrorist threat. Because of this Canadians face a new security
problem. Criminal elements now illegally in the U.S. will be looking for a new
base of operations. Canada is widely seen as weak and vulnerable to
manipulation by lawless individuals. The government and its ministers have a
very poor track record in this vital area.
I invite the government to tell Canadians what specific
measures it is now initiating to deal effectively with this new, serious
situation.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is virtually impossible to respond to
such an outrageous allegation. As the hon. member should know, we in fact have
some of the toughest and most modern extradition laws in the world. We have
mutual legal assistance agreements with the United States and many other
countries.
I have indicated in the House that we are one of the
few nations of the world that has signed all 12 UN conventions against
terrorism. We are going to ratify and implement the remaining two, including
the convention on the suppression of terrorist financing.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, if the best Canadians can get from the
Minister of Justice is a lot of huffing and puffing, then we are in serious
trouble.
It is true that the U.S. is actively seeking
individuals who may have terrorist training and intent. These people are going
to flee. We know they are looking at Canada. The minister must know this. What
is the government doing to make sure that our country is not the recipient of
these undesirable elements? What is it doing specifically?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, first of all we have some
of the most modern and toughest extradition laws in the world. Therefore if
people come to Canada and a request is made to extradite them, we will
extradite them.
As I have indicated before we have mutual legal
assistance agreements with dozens of countries, including the United States of
America. We work closely with our allies in the United States to ensure that we
share information between our intelligence organizations, that we share
information between our police, and the Department of Justice in this country
acts closely with the department of justice in the United States.
* * *
Federal-Provincial
Relations
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Finance.
Given the global economic slowdown and the financial
uncertainty stemming from the attack on the United States, Canadians need to
know whether the federal government will maintain its commitment to the
fundamentals of health care and education. Could the minister tell the House
whether transfers of payments to the provinces for education and health will be
protected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the many benefits of the prudence
with which the government has proceeded is that Canadians in fact can rest
assured that the basic social programs, the foundation of the country, are
fully protected.
It was a year ago September that the government signed
an historic accord for $23.5 billion in transfers to provinces for health care
and education. I can tell the House that $2.8 billion will be transferred this
year, $1 billion to the member's province alone.
As a result of the courage with which the government
has operated, Canadians can rest assured that their basic programs are fully
protected.
* * *
(1455)
Social Insurance
Numbers
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is becoming
increasingly concerned over safety and security issues. Photo ID is lacking on
essential documents in Canada, for instance, our social insurance cards. When
will the HRDC minister implement security measures to protect
Canadians?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has acted in a number of
significant ways to protect the integrity of the social insurance number. This
has been recognized in the auditor general's report of December 2000. In the
last two years we have conducted approximately 7,000 investigations per year,
up from earlier levels of 2,500 investigations per year.
We have resources within the government and within the
department that are specifically dedicated to protecting the SIN from abuse and
we have specialized equipment to detect false identification
documents.
Mrs. Carol Skelton
(Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that just shows how bad the situation is
getting.
Canadian citizens are vulnerable when it comes to
forged documents. Last November HRDC had access to software that would have
provided security to social insurance cards. This software would have been less
intrusive and cheaper than other technologies but the department did not use
it.
When will HRDC decide to improve the security of
Canadians?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we have implemented
many measures to protect the social insurance number, as the auditor general
has recognized.
The member is referring to a business that provides a
certain type of technology. But I believe that the use of such a system raises
concerns about the protection of personal information.
We want to be sure we continue to detect fraud and
abuse and to protect personal information.
* * *
Airline Industry
Mr. Mario Laframboise
(Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in response to a request by Air Canada,
the Minister of Transport has indicated that the government would be assisting
the airlines by assuming a portion of their increased insurance premiums, a
direct result of the crisis caused by the attacks in New York.
Are we to understand that any assistance the government
intends to extend to Air Canada will be extended to the other carriers, Air
Transat in particular?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, no decision has been reached on financial
assistance to the airline industry, outside of Saturday's announcement by me
related to insurance.
[English]
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a result of the tragic events of
September 11, Canadians have expressed concerns about air travel.
Could the Minister of Transport please tell the House
what steps the government has taken to ensure that aviation services will be
maintained uninterrupted.
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this does follow from the last question.
The fact is that we did respond to the decision by the international insurers
that they would no longer provide levels of war risk liability currently in
place. If we had not done anything about it, it would have meant that all
airports and all airlines in this country would have been shut down as of
midnight tonight. A similar occurrence would have occurred right around the
world.
That is why on Saturday I announced, on behalf of the
government, indemnity for third party war and terrorism liabilities for
essential aviation service operators in Canada for a period of 90 days while
everyone negotiates with the lenders.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
The inshore shrimp fishery in Newfoundland is in a
state of crisis. Fishers cannot afford to fish and processors cannot afford to
operate their plants. One of the main reasons is the 20% tariff charged for
Canadian shrimp going into European markets.
What steps has the minister taken to make sure that
this inequity is corrected?
(1500)
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the European tariff
of 20% which makes shrimp products less competitive. I know the Minister for
International Trade has been working very hard on this as well.
We have allocated a quota on shrimp so we can continue
to be competitive in the European Union. The government is doing everything it
possibly can to have the European's look at that again so they can get rid of
the 20% tariff that our producers have to face.
* * *
Airline Safety
Mr. Peter Stoffer
(Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, while Canadians line up for what seems to
be an awfully long time at security points to have their nail clippers removed
from their baggage, on board the aircraft all too willing flight attendants are
giving us metal serrated knives and forks. The United States has decided
through the FTA to remove all metal cutlery on board aircraft due to the
concerns of September 11.
Would the Minister of Transport not think it prudent
for Canada do the same and remove all metal cutlery from aircraft for the
safety and protection of all travellers?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of
Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is fully the intent and where it has
not been done it will be done forthwith.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Paul Crête
(Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, since the events in the United States of
last September 11, the economic downturn has been heavily felt in the shape of
significant job losses.
What is keeping the Minister of Human Resources
Development from providing the unemployed with some sort of security by acting
on the unanimous report on employment insurance tabled by parliamentarians last
May 31?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have received the report by the House
of Commons committee and are studying it. As agreed, we will be making a public
response.
* * *
[English]
National Revenue
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail published a
confidential internal document bulletin issued to our border guards regarding
risk assessment. This incident occurred five days ago and I am sure the
investigation by the Minister of National Revenue is well underway.
I want to know how this sensitive document was
leaked.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of
National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada
for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question of risk assessment, as I have
said on numerous occasions, is part of our daily job. Facing tragic malicious
events, like the one we know so well, we must get involved and proceed with the
tools that we have at our disposal.
Talking about risk assessment, what we want to do in
the near future is use additional tools. In order to use additional tools we
need Bill S-23, which is being blocked in the House of Commons by those
opposition members. They are irresponsible. They do not pay attention to the
security of Canadians and we do.
* * *
[Translation]
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker:
Order, please. I wish to inform the House of the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Michel Sapin, Minister of the Public
Service and Government Reform of the Republic of France.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I also wish to inform the House of
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Cheick Amadou Camara, Minister of
the Economy and Finance, and of His Excellency Lamine Kamara, Minister of
Employment and the Public Service of the Republic of Guinea.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
[English]
Points of Order
PC/DR Coalition--Speaker's
Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker:
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised
by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough concerning the status in
the House of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative
Coalition.
[Translation]
First, though, l want to thank all hon. members for
their gracious co-operation with the Chair when the House met last week. This
co-operation made it possible to make appropriate interim arrangements without
prejudice to any decision on this matter, and facilitated the orderly conduct
of urgent business by postponing to an opportune time full consideration of
this point of order.
[English]
The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough
referred to a letter he had written to me concerning the establishment of the
20 member Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition, its
membership and the appointment of its officers. Meant to function, as he says,
“within the machinery of the House of Commons”, the coalition seeks to be
recognized officially in the House for certain procedural purposes. It is
requesting “all of the privileges and rights” associated with recognition as
the “fourth largest political entity” in the House, namely with respect to
seating in the House, precedence and the allocation of time in all
deliberations.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for having raised the matter on behalf of the
Coalition. I would also like to thank the House leader of the official
opposition, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois, the government House
leader, the House leader of the New Democratic Party and the hon. member for
Fraser Valley for their contributions to the discussion.
As various members and many pundits have pointed out,
the situation facing us is, in many ways, unprecedented, and I would ask for
the House’s indulgence as I try to untangle the skeins of argument that have
been presented.
[English]
Let me deal first with the suggestion that this is
perhaps a matter better decided by the House than by the Speaker. In this
regard, members have referred to the 1963 ruling by Mr. Speaker MacNaughton
concerning the fragmentation of the Social Credit Party and the resulting
claims of the Raillement des créditistes. That ruling is of some assistance and
I will return to it later in my remarks but, like so many other references, it
is not entirely on point. In the almost four decades since that ruling, our
practice has evolved and I do not believe that it is inappropriate for the
Chair in the present case to consider the matters that have been laid before
it. Indeed, I believe that to do otherwise would be to shirk the Chair's
undoubted responsibility to protect the rights of all minorities in the House.
Thus, I find it difficult to understand why, if it was
appropriate for the New Democratic Party to argue for recognition before the
Speaker in 1994, it is inappropriate for the coalition to put its case to the
Speaker today. In my view the Speaker must rule on these matters as he did in
1994.
[Translation]
I draw to members’ attention the words of Mr. Speaker
Fraser, as reported in the Debates of September 24, 1990, on page
13216:
|
I
think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I
can assure the hon. member that the rights of minorities will be protected by
the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other
members. |
Before we consider the arguments for and against the
case for recognition presented by the hon. member for
Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, let us set aside the many points raised during
the discussion that may be of peripheral interest but that are not
relevant--let alone illuminating--to the question to be decided.
[English]
For example, there were several references made to the
definition and recognition of political parties in statutes, notably the Canada
Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
Of course it is a long held principle that the Speaker
does not interpret matters of law. Nonetheless, political parties are a
fundamental part of our electoral process and detailed requirements concerning
their registration are set out in part 18 of the Canada Elections Act. The hon.
House leader for the New Democratic Party said:
I do not think the House of Commons
can be completely isolated from what takes place outside it and from the status
people enjoy outside the House. |
To be sure there are political parties outside the
House and there are recognized parties and caucuses inside the House and these
may be closely linked. In matters relating to the status or designation of
individuals or groups in the House, the House makes its own decisions without
necessarily limiting itself to standards and definitions used outside the House
of Commons. Definitions used in the House of Commons are not drawn from
statute; they are drawn from the practice of the House.
After a general election, the statutory focus shifts
from the Canada Elections Act to the Parliament of Canada Act which later act,
for example, stipulates the composition and role of the Board of Internal
Economy. The bylaws of the board in turn govern the execution of those
statutory responsibilities through the administration of the House of Commons.
The arguments advanced by hon. members referring to
either of these statutes to the bylaws of the board of internal economy or to
the board's responsibility for matters of finance and administration do not
concern us here. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has
rightly explained that he intends to raise these issues with the board in due
course, so these statutory and resourcing matters need not detain
us.
The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona implied in
argument that recognition by the House involved an application of the rules
surrounding a marriage ceremony. The hon. member is an expert in holy matrimony
with wide experience in performing marriages. His comments were of great
assistance to a Speaker untutored in these matters. However, I would remind him
that even common law relationships sometimes attract a sort of legal
recognition. Society may recognize certain things. The House is another
matter.
(1510)
[Translation]
Let us turn to the crux of the problem, that is,
whether House of Commons procedure will permit the recognition of what the hon.
member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has described as “the fourth largest
political entity” in the House, the PC/DR Coalition.
It might be helpful to return to first principles here,
because so many extraneous elements have been invoked on this question in the
widespread speculation that this controversial, highly publicized situation has
provoked.
[English]
Let us return to the opening of a parliament and the
convening of a newly elected House. Once a general election has been held and
the writs of election issued, attention turns from external political realities
to the internal realities of a new parliament. The political focus shifts from
the electors and the election to the elected MPs sitting in the House of
Commons and its committees.
Deliberations in the Chamber and in committee are
governed by the standing orders and by House procedure and practice. In these
procedural authorities the terms “party” or “recognized party” refer to a group
of members with a number of identifying features: first, there are at least 12
members in the group; second, they appoint a slate of House officers as their
official spokespersons; third, they work as a cohesive unit; and fourth, they
serve under the same banner.
In a newly constituted House for the duration of a
parliament, each individual for whom a writ of election has been received will
work as an MP usually within a party. The machinery of the party caucus, that
is, its officers, staff and research bureau, will serve to organize each
party's work in the House and in committee.
During the course of a parliament we have seen members
change parties, members suspended from caucus and members expelled from caucus.
Each member was elected to the House. Each member elected to the House may live
out the vicissitudes of that parliament as he or she sees fit. Indeed, each
member may self-designate his or her affiliations or lack thereof.
[Translation]
In this regard, a basic question is how a member will
be identified. It is an accepted part of our practice that individual members
and groups are permitted to select the manner in which they will be designated
for parliamentary purposes. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in the Debates
of December 13, 1990, on page 16705:
|
--the
Chair must advise that it can find no prescription limiting the designations
inserted under political affiliation in the Appendix to Debates to those
parties officially recognized as such pursuant to the Canada Elections
Act. |
|
The
absence of such a limiting prescription must be weighed against the combined
weight of our past practice in this regard and our longstanding tradition of
respecting the word and legitimate demands to self-definition of individual
members. |
(1515)
[English]
In the case before us we have 12 members of the
recognized Progressive Conservative Party and eight independent members who
comprise the Democratic Representative caucus, in total a group of 20 MPs who
have identified themselves to the Speaker as members of the Progressive
Conservative/Democratic Representative, or PC/DR, Coalition. This is the title
of the caucus under which they will henceforth be known.
The coalition composed of these 20 members has further
announced that it will function as a group for parliamentary purposes and has
informed the Chair of its slate of officers. Here again these are matters that
the House has always left entirely to the discretion of MPs. They identify
themselves as individuals and are free to identify themselves as a group. Their
spokespersons are theirs to select. Neither the Speaker nor other members has a
say in such matters.
Therefore I have concluded that the officers named by
the PC/DR Coalition will be recognized as the coalition's spokespersons in the
usual operations of the House and its committees. They are: the right hon.
member for Calgary Centre as leader; the hon. member for Fraser Valley as
deputy leader; the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as House
leader; the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River as whip; and the hon.
member for Edmonton North as caucus chair.
Just as I must conclude that the coalition's officers
must be recognized, I can find no procedural objection to the request that
members who share the PC/DR designation and the leadership of these officers
should be seated together in the configuration that their whip may determine.
In my view this is not a matter where the Chair has any grounds to object or to
intervene.
However what I have granted to this point is not all of
what is being sought. On the basis that it possesses more than the basic 12
members required for status as a recognized party in the House, the coalition
seeks additional recognition. Specifically it argues that by virtue of its 20
member composition, the PC/DR Coalition should have precedence over the 13
member New Democratic Party. In other words, the coalition seeks to be
recognized as the fourth party in the House, or seen another way, as the third
party in opposition.
It is here that the Chair encounters considerable
difficulty. Earlier I listed what can be extrapolated as the hallmarks of a
party or a recognized party under our procedure and practice, namely at least
12 members with a set of House officers working as a cohesive unit, serving
under the same banner.
My problem is simple. By its very name the coalition
acknowledges that it is a composite entity. An analysis of the arguments finds
it successfully passes the first two tests set by our practice for any
recognized party, and to the extent that a single set of House officers are its
spokespersons, it can be said that it meets the third criterion of working as a
cohesive unit.
Yet the coalition has declined to present itself as a
party in this place. It may speak as a party does, It may operate as a party
does, but until such time as its members present themselves as a party, the
recognition the coalition seeks with regard to precedence and allocation of
time must remain at best a matter for negotiation between the coalition and the
four recognized parties.
In discussing the process of debate, Marleau and
Montpetit states at page 506:
|
The
Speaker subsequently “sees” Members from opposite sides of the House in a
reasonable rotation, bearing in mind the membership of the various recognized
parties in the House, the right of reply, and the nature of the
proceedings. |
In determining the allocation of precedence and time
during debate, during question period and statements by members, in the
distribution of allotted days and the composition of committees, the Speaker
receives the advice of the House leaders and whips who negotiate agreements on
these matters based on party strength in the House. Agreements reached through
the negotiations of House officers greatly facilitate the work of all members
here in the House and in committee and are of immeasurable value to the Chair
in its presiding role.
For such negotiations to be genuine, all officers
concerned must be given an equal opportunity to participate. I am sure that the
hon. House leader and the other officers of the PC/DR Coalition seek no more
than this and I know they will be afforded the usual courtesies by their
counterparts. Only under the most extreme circumstances where the fundamental
rights of members were threatened would the Speaker feel compelled to intervene
in such matters.
I remind the House of the words of Mr. Speaker
Macnaughton in the Journals of September 30, 1963, at page 387:
|
It is
not (a situation) where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where
any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have
been prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in a position where he must
decide, to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters
affecting the character or existence of a party, for this surely would signify
that the Speaker had taken what was almost a political decision-- |
(1520)
In summary then, after careful scrutiny of all our
precedents and of various analogous situations in the United Kingdom and in the
Commonwealth, the Chair has concluded that our practice has uniformly dealt not
with the recognition of groups but with that of parties.
The Chair acknowledges and recognizes the PC/DR
Coalition as the regrouping of, on the one hand, a recognized party, and on the
other, a group of dissident members, together operating as a single caucus. The
officers of the coalition will therefore be recognized as the official
spokespersons for the coalition and the members of the coalition will be
permitted to sit together in any arrangement they wish. Since the Progressive
Conservatives retain their status as a recognized party, the PC/DR Coalition
will continue to enjoy the precedence afforded to the Progressive
Conservatives.
However, the Chair is unable at this time to grant full
party recognition to the PC/DR Coalition since I cannot extend recognition as a
party to a group which disavows that title and which is clearly an amalgam of a
party and a group of independent MPs.
[Translation]
If circumstances change, the Chair will of course be
prepared to revisit this question.
[English]
I thank hon. members for the contributions they made on
this difficult and important question and of course for the free advice offered
over the past few months by our media.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Petitions
VIA Rail
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition from
citizens of Peterborough who would like to see VIA service re-established
between Toronto and Peterborough. They see this as improving the environment,
reducing pollution on the highways and improving the business status not only
of Peterborough but of the greater Toronto area.
* * *
Bioartificial
Kidney
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. This petition is
from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about those of our citizens who
suffer from end stage kidney disease.
These people support research on the bioartificial
kidney. The bioartificial kidney is an implant which will greatly improve the
life of those who have kidney disease. Work is going ahead in the United
States. There is support for it in Canada.
The petitioners call upon parliament to support
research on the bioartificial kidney, which will eventually eliminate the need
for dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney
disease.
* * *
Falun Gong
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon,
Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the
citizens of Yukon from the supporters of Falun Gong who are opposed to the
torture and murder of the members of that sect who are simply standing for
truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The petitioners would like Canada to
set up a rescue team to help support these people and free Falun Gong
practitioners who are now in prison.
* * *
Questions on the Order
Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker:
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
Customs Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that
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.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill,
especially as the elected representative of a riding that has experienced
remarkable industrial growth over the last few years.
Indeed, we have seen an increase in trade in recent
years. In this context, a review of our customs policies has become necessary.
Changes are required so that both people and goods can move more freely and
more rapidly at our borders. I will come back to the situation in my riding,
which has some concerns with regard to Bill S-23.
Quebec, its government and the Bloc Quebecois are in
favour of the freer movement of goods and services between countries. We
supported NAFTA and we support the FTAA, as long as individual and cultural
rights are respected.
However, Bill S-23 confers regulatory powers that we
think leave too much room for ministerial discretion. In fact, it seems to be
this government's way of doing things. There is the act, and then there are
regulations that are added later on, which makes it impossible to have an
overall picture of the act and its impact.
As legislators, we do not like giving so much power to
a minister. This situation raises questions on a number of points relating to
security. Customs clearance measures will in fact be defined by the minister's
regulatory powers in future regulations. Accordingly, we cannot know exactly
what the law will provide in this regard.
We agree with the government's intent to modernize
customs procedures to promote and more importantly to facilitate trade.
However, there must be some balance between procedures and security. In this
regard, the events of September 11 in the United States gave rise to a
tightening of border control measures. In some instances, transportation
industry workers spent more time waiting at the borders than doing their
delivery.
Trade between the States and Canada represents
approximately $2 billion a day—about 100 million people cross the border
annually—hence the importance of keeping our borders open and operating. Canada
should also consider sharing customs controls with the United States. But as it
stands, Bill S-23 does not allow us to accurately assess the balance between
security and the modernization of procedures, because it leaves too much to the
discretion of the minister.
Bill S-23 also provides for the establishment of two
programs that will enable travellers to clear customs more quickly. Automated
points will appear in airports and will help “approved” travellers pass quickly
through the formalities of customs and immigration. Those who regularly cross
the border, under expanded streamlined clearance programs, will be given the
pass we know today as the Canpass.
This is happening at a time when, at airports and
border crossings, authorities have decided to increase staff for the single
purpose of tightening control and safety measures. Right now, every vehicle
that crosses the border is inspected. The director of the Canada project at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Christopher Sands, recently
told a journalist:
|
No
border between countries as rich and developed is so little advanced
technologically, so mediocre as ours. |
This is a sad comment. Is it also the minister's
intention to invest financially to improve the situation?
Earlier, I mentioned that I wanted to talk about my
riding, because the two go together. Currently, people in my riding are very
concerned about this bill, which would change customs services provided in my
constituency and which would probably adversely affect these
services.
I will begin with a brief description of the area.
Drummondville is located at the intersection of highways 20 and 55, which
provide direct and quick access to Montreal and Quebec City, major U.S.
highways, local and international airports, seaports and ports along the
seaway. Drummondville is itself a central location for towns such as
Victoriaville, Granby, Sherbrooke, Richmond, Saint-Hyacinthe, Sorel,
Trois-Rivières, Thetford Mines, and so on.
Rail transportation is well structured and operates
with intermodal. Over 20 transportation businesses have their terminal in
Drummondville or in the area.
Local industries serve a growing number of consumers
in a radius of 100 kilometres. They include a significant number of importers
and exporters. For example, out of 653 importers who cleared customs in
Drummondville last year, 173 are locally based.
The administrative region of Centre-du-Québec
includes a majority of small and medium size businesses that are not inclined
to use the CADEX system. This means that they depend on manual ways of doing
things and on the proximity of points of service.
Already in a letter dated February 19, 1996, Deputy
Minister Pierre Gravelle explained why it was beneficial to move to
Drummondville services that had until then been provided in Victoriaville, this
after a thorough review of the situation.
Three customs inspectors work full time at the office
located in Drummondville, the only town in the region of Centre-du-Québec that
provides customs services.
(1530)
This includes regular and fast-tracked customs
release; the clearance of highway and rail freight; customs clearance at six
sufferance warehouses; a highway sufferance warehouse; customs clearance for
air passengers at the Drummondville and Victoriaville airports; service to the
public; small craft licensing.
In a letter he wrote to me last year, the Minister of
Revenue indicated as follows “Canada Customs and Revenue Agency operates on a
risk management basis and would like to reallocate its resources from low risk
customs offices to higher risk offices”. This means, to all intents and
purposes, that we could cease having any customs inspectors in Drummondville,
on the pretext that the security risk there is low.
If this statement could perhaps be at least somewhat
supported last year, it is at the very least highly debatable at the present
time, for three reasons: the increased cross-border trade; the intensification
of organized crime activities; the acts of terrorism in the United States, of
which we are all aware.
To address the increase in trade, as everyone no
doubt is aware, the Drummondville area is in such a rate of economic expansion
that it is now considered the driver of Quebec's economy. International trade
is on the upturn, particularly with the U.S. That is why we have two customs
brokers in our area: Affiliated Customs Brokers and Fritz Starber
Inc.
As well, we have two private schools giving courses
on international trade: Ellis Business College and Abrimex.
The number of commercial customs releases is evidence
of this. From a level of 12,965 in 1997-98, and of 14,179 in 1998-99, it has
been constantly on the increase, despite new technologies and simplified
procedures.
It is obvious that the opening up of markets and the
free trade are going to accelerate this phenomenon. We cannot see how an
increase in goods being shipped and of persons crossing the border can reduce
the security risk.
Let me now turn to the increase in crime. Initially,
the RCMP considered shutting down its Drummondville detachment, but given the
notable rise in crime and the recommendations of an internal working group, it
has decided rather to maintain its existing services and even got, nationally,
an additional $59 million “specifically to fight organized crime, terrorism,
drug trafficking, smuggling and people smuggling.”
Clearly recognizing the increased risk, the solicitor
general indicated at the same time that he wanted the RCMP to be better
prepared to fight organized crime and transborder threats to the safety and
security of the population.
Again, we are having trouble understanding how Canada
customs could conclude that the risks were low when the RCMP believes they have
increased and has acted accordingly.
The tragic events that have recently affected the
U.S. have made us realize that we are not as safe as we thought we were and
have led the U.S. to reconsider the superiority of high technology over human
action, which is why we might be asked to review our procedures.
Finally, given the recent tragedies, I feel that
things have changed and that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which
focuses on risk management, should take that into consideration and avoid any
hasty conclusion.
I would urge the minister to consult with the people
in my riding before making any changes to the customs services, as he promised
to do in his letter dated May 5.
(1535)
He said this:
Senior officials from the agency
will organize consultative meetings on this issue with political leaders like
you, as well as with the mayor, city councillors and members of the
community. |
I wonder what will happen if Bill S-23 is passed
without our being aware of all the regulations, if the minister closes customs
offices in a riding like Drummond, where we need these resources and these
services because of an increase in both imports and exports, if, because of the
whole issue of security, staff is reduced and employees are laid off.
Rumour has it that it is senior officials or “small
bosses” from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who want to repatriate the
powers in their areas, including Cowansville and Granby.
People from Drummond are at the mercy of those who
want to repatriate services closer to them, saying that, thanks to new
technologies, all problems will be solved. We are worried. If the minister
chooses to proceed in this fashion, there will be a public outcry and he will
never hear the end of it.
If his vision is to close offices where we need these
resources to install more sophisticated systems at the border, maybe he should
think about the terrorist attacks in the United States. They may have had all
the new technologies and all the most sophisticated instruments, but they
forgot about the importance of human resources in the field. If we forget that,
our security may not be as stable and effective as we would like.
Although the objectives of the programs mentioned in
Bill S-23 are good, there is still no provision for the security problems I
mentioned earlier. Either security or savings will require compromise. The
minister will have to tell us which approach he intends to choose and
especially clarify S-23 in order to gain our support.
The two programs mentioned earlier, one of which is
known as Canpass, will be established through regulatory means. It is as if we
are being asked to sign a blank cheque. The underlying idea is a good one, but
when it comes to applying and implementing the bill and the security aspect of
it, the government seems to be saying “Trust me”.
Officials will submit regulations, and we will have
to sign the blank cheque. I do not think it works that way. We, the legislators
who represent our ridings, do not much like being asked to let things like
“Trust us” pass. We are here to make laws. We are entitled to and we have a
right to know what we are voting on.
In the current context, the public has the right to
know and to debate such essential issues as customs clearance. I want to know
how it will work at customs. The people want to know too, and they are
concerned. We do not want to reach the end of the process to hear “We will be
identifying you by your iris, and you will have this and that”.
(1540)
This also includes people's private or personal
information. Can we expect that this information will be protected? This is
what we want to know. It is not mentioned in the bill, which only says “at the
minister's discretion”. Regulations will be made; this will be regulated by the
minister. But he is the one who will decide. Will the minister decide on the
spur of the moment or after the fact? It is not normal to proceed like
this.
Customs employees also have a right to know when and
how these procedures will affect them in their daily tasks. Out of respect for
our constituents—as I said earlier and I will conclude with this since I only
have one minute left—we cannot, if nothing changes with this bill and if we do
not have the regulations before us, sign a blank cheque.
(1545)
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member
express a lot of concern regarding the regulations such as AMPS, COMPASS and
CSA. I am pleased to inform her that the CCRA will prepare a detailed draft
regulation this week.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I really did not understand
the hon. member's comment. I am sorry.
Still, I would like to remind her that, in my riding,
the concern stems from the fact that when we talk about technological measures
and changes, we must really include procedures. It goes without saying that
changes are necessary. We must try to greatly enhance movement at our borders.
As I was saying earlier, there are trucks right now
that are spending more time clearing customs than it delivering their goods.
So, some changes are definitely required. But we really have to know what will
happen.
We have a bill that seems to reflect good intentions,
but there are no regulations. Everything is at the minister's discretion. In an
area like mine, where, for the past four years, there have been rumors that
customs services in Drummondville will close, this does not make sense.
Should that become reality, there will be public outcry
because the whole riding of Drummond, which is made up of 22 municipalities, is
against the closing of the customs office in Drummondville. That office serves
region 17 in Quebec. We need it. It is not a big office, with only three
customs officers at the moment. But why close this border crossing and move it
to a non-neighbouring area where the situation is totally different from
ours?
Why make such a decision? Human resources are being
replaced by technology at a time when we need even more customs officers. We
need people to ensure our safety. Right now, most Quebecers and Canadians are
worried. Now is not to time to circulate rumours to the effect that our customs
offices will be closed.
In response to the member's question, I can say that
people in my riding are worried because Bill S-23 wants to take away human
resources that are very important in light of the recent terrorist attacks in
the United States.
I think there is a lesson to be learned from that. Now
is not the time to remove people from the field. Yes, we do need new
technologies, but we also need to keep our customs officers and even to double
their numbers, because these people who work in the field know their
job.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation
and found the issue of open borders and trade to be a compelling argument.
Any community actively dealing with its trading
partners in the United States should be very concerned over the issue of
security. The rumours the member heard about customs officers being pulled from
the port of entry would certainly affect her riding. Whatever province in
Canada we come from, close to 90% of our goods and services are tied to the
American market and security should be examined closely.
I will ask a question I have asked several times in the
House and one which I have not received much of a reply. On the one side the
Customs Act wants to streamline legitimate cross border trade and travel by
using new technology, electronic monitoring, self-assessment and advanced
information for approval.
On the other side of the coin there is something that I
believe needs to be addressed. I know there is an answer but I have not yet
heard anything from the government side nor from the opposition side. I refer
to the statement by the director of CSIS, Ward Elcock. He called Canada one of
the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets. He further elaborated by saying
“With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more
international terrorist groups active here than in any other country in the
world”. I can see why, given our proximity to the United States.
With that security issue looming before us now, how can
we streamline things on one side and also provide security on the
other?
(1550)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard:
Mr. Speaker, I truly respect the opinion of the member
of the official opposition. I do not have the answer to that question
either.
As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with
Bill S-23. I know that security at our borders needs to be tightened up. People
close to me who have worked at crossing points in Quebec have often told me
that it is very hard to control everything and to ensure public safety without
the appropriate human and financial resources and the technology
required.
Of course, what happened is very troubling. Given the
tragedies that occurred in the U.S., Customs and Excise needs to reconsider
things. The government has no other choice but to review all the services it
provides at crossing points in order to ensure better protection and avoid as
much as possible unlawful entry of persons in Canada, like traffickers who come
and go between Canada and the U.S.
Canada's borders have often be called open sieves. It
is not the first we hear such a thing. We know how easy it is to falsify
Canadian passports. It looks like it is also very easy to come here and then
travel to the United States.
We have to be very careful and very serious about this
issue. As I said earlier, this is not the time to lay off the officers who
ensure our safety, who see to it that travellers are well served, just because
of the emergence of new technologies. Technology will never replace people in
the field.
(1555)
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-23, an act to
amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. I will
speak specifically to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Edmonton--Strathcona.
When I think about the bill I must reflect on what has
happened since September 11. I recently read a detailed schedule of what the
Prime Minister did immediately after the attacks of September 11. I do not
remember his exact words but the first thing he said was that nothing would be
the same and that everything had changed.
However that is not true. Bill S-23 is still the same.
Nothing in the bill has changed despite the events of September 11. The
government has taken no initiative to change the bill to address all aspects of
terrorism in the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington. The timing of
the bill is wrong because it ignores the events of September 11.
We in my party therefore agree with the amendment. The
bill should be pulled back, tabled, reviewed and rewritten to consider all the
other approaches that will need to be taken to deal with the new world we live
in. I think we all acknowledge that it is a new world and nothing will ever be
the same. We have heard those words many times in the House.
Bill S-23 was written some time last year in a
completely different set of circumstances. It was passed by the Senate in the
spring and does not reflect the situation we find ourselves in now.
The bill is contradictory to many of the things we are
now discussing such as increasing security and security perimeters. Bill S-23
would do the reverse of that in many ways. It would lean more on technology
than on the ability of people to determine when there are contraventions of the
Customs Act, falsified passports and so on.
We in our party think the bill should go back and be
completely reviewed over a period of time. We support the amendment for that
reason.
We are all facing new challenges which we did not face
a few weeks ago. As I mentioned earlier, the United States is committed to a
secure perimeter. Canada will either be inside the perimeter or outside it. The
United States is not speculating on the perimeter; it is saying it will have
it.
It is important that we adjust our customs regulations
and customs act to recognize this. It will make a fundamental difference as to
whether we are inside the perimeter or out.
Many technical aspects of our relationship with the
United States will need to change. The U.S. wants us to review our extradition
laws. I am sure that is one of the subjects the Prime Minister discussed today
with the president of the United States. The U.S. is concerned about the long
process illegal immigrants must go through when they find themselves in Canada.
When the Liberal government takes exception to their presence it takes a long
time to address the issue. That will need to be dealt with.
Many people say the government did not react properly
in the first seven days after the attacks. My theory is that it has not reacted
well in the last seven years. It has cut back spending to intelligence agencies
and the military. It has had seven years of neglect on both counts. The
government is depending more and more on technology. This has proven to be poor
policy.
The previous speaker talked about the possible closure
of a customs office in her riding. Two customs offices in my riding have been
closed. They had been there for 100 years and are now gone. They are not there
any more to perform the valuable service they used to provide. The government
is focusing on technology instead of on people to do the job.
However many things will need to be dealt with in
addition to customs and immigration. There are things like air traffic safety
and aircraft regulations. An issue was raised in question period today about
cutlery on aircraft. Locking cockpit doors is an issue that will need to be
addressed. There was an immediate knee jerk reaction to this issue, a reaction
with which I agree. However cockpits must be protected from
encroachment.
(1600)
On the question of air marshals, if the United States
is to have air marshals on its aircraft does that mean Air Canada must have air
marshals on its aircraft when they fly in the U.S.? Transponders were shut off
in the four hijackings that took place recently in the United States. Will
those regulations be changed? Will those airplanes be changed?
Many questions must be dealt with in addition to and
including customs, airport security, access to luggage, access to airplanes,
the people who groom the airplanes and the people who deal with the freight
that goes on them. How will these be changed and adjusted? What legislation
will we bring to the table to address this new world?
In light of the incredible circumstances experienced in
the United States it is wrong to try to put through obsolete legislation which
was written last year. I agree with the Prime Minister. Everything has changed,
especially in terms of security, immigration and customs. It is important that
we treat things differently than we did before September 11.
In that regard the amendment is the right way to go. We
must stop the bill, go back and review it in light of all the other changes
that must be made. It must be dealt with as a comprehensive package. It cannot
be dealt with as a single issue. We must deal with extradition, immigration,
border crossings, customs funding, intelligence funding, military funding,
extradition laws and a legal process for illegal immigrants.
The bill is obsolete and it would be wrong to pass it
under current circumstances. Our goal is certainly freer trade with the United
States. However if we do not build our new environment with respect to the
Americans and what they are doing, we may find ourselves with tougher trade
instead of freer trade.
One thing that impressed me was the ability of the
enemy we are now dealing with to fool intelligence agencies around the world.
It took years to put the attack together. They did it through several
countries. Some of the hijackers and terrorists lived in Canada, at least for
some time, and we missed them. They lived in the U.S. and they missed them.
They lived in many countries in Europe. They gathered together all kinds of
explosive materials, information and training through these countries and no
one caught on.
This is an intelligent group of terrorists. We must
deal with that. We must be prepared for it. We cannot assume we will succeed
because we have technology, spy satellites and all kinds of communications
experts. That does not work. It does not count. We missed the boat. Our
intelligence services completely failed to detect that this incredible
terrorist act would take place.
The enemy is well prepared. It can take advantage of
our rules if we are not careful. We must adjust our rules and amend our laws to
prevent terrorists from contravening our systems and getting away with it.
It is most impressive that it took so long to put the
attack together. It involved people crossing our borders into the United States
and people entering Canada and the U.S. from other countries. No one caught
them. Customs officers, intelligence agencies and the military failed to catch
them.
I will wind up by saying that we in my party support
the amendment. Amendments should be tabled to the Customs Act until a
comprehensive approach to the whole new world situation can be
established.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis of the hon. member's
presentation was somewhat different than that of many others who made their
presentations today, not so much on this side but certainly on the Liberal side
and among Bloc members.
The member expressed concern about terrorism, organized
criminal activity and the like. That will certainly be a focal point. If anyone
in the House believes there will be a streamlining in the movement of goods and
people south of the border which does not answer the security issue, their
heads are buried in the sand.
Given that these two things are playing out right now
before us, the movement of goods will affect the economy one way or the other.
If goods are held up at the border and customers are lost our economy will be
hurt substantially. We have seen this happen over the last few days with the
slowdown at border crossings. It is making its impact on our economy and will
certainly do so with the Americans.
The issue of security has still not been addressed in
its total form. How does the member think we can have a streamlining of goods
and people across the border and still meet all the needs of
security?
(1605)
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
My feeling on this is and always has been that we should not just be doing what
the United States tells us to. We should be establishing our own rules in
consultation and collaboration with the U.S.
We have an obligation. We could be the next victim. We
are in effect a victim now. Everything we do has changed. The hon. member
mentioned lineups at the border. How about the 9,000 or 10,000 people who
landed in Halifax unexpectedly? How about disruptions to our transportation
system and all the changes we have had to make in security?
The terrorist attacks did not happen in Canada but they
affected us in a tangible way. Maybe the next act will be in Canada. We must be
philosophical about deciding what to do. The secure perimeter that the United
States will establish could include us. This would protect our relationship
with our biggest trading partner and allow for continued safe and secure
transportation of goods back and forth.
If we establish rules that do not reflect the concerns
of our partners in the United States, the U.S. may establish borders that
prevent Canadian goods and services from going back and forth without a great
deal of inspection and examination. This would effectively eliminate our most
favoured nation status.
Our overall approach must be comprehensive. We cannot
say we will deal with the customs aspect this way and the aircraft aspect that
way. It must be a comprehensive approach.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we are now victims.
We were victims the day the acts of terrorism took place. It was not only
Americans who died but a large number of people of other nationalities
including Canadians. When it comes to trade with the Americans we must realize
that this is where Canada's bread and butter is.
If we do not live up to our obligations as the
Americans see them they will curtail our trade quite substantially. The
Americans have set up what is called homeland defence, a special committee or
organization to address the security of their nation.
Should the government not be looking along the same
lines? Should it not be working hand in hand with our American brothers and
sisters on the issue instead of taking a different avenue? That is my question
for the member.
Mr. Bill Casey:
Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a delicate matter. We
in Canada must establish our own rules but they must fit with what the United
States is doing. We cannot let the United States tell us to do things, but we
can come up with approaches to the issues which satisfy their concerns and
allow us to maintain our sovereignty, our culture and our control over the
issues.
As the hon. member said, the U.S. has established a
homeland defence division and appointed a special secretary who answers
directly to the president. That is the level of priority the U.S. is putting on
security. If the Americans get a head start on us and start establishing rules
without our input we will be left in the dust and unable to reflect our
concerns. We will be in a very difficult position when we deal with the United
States.
We should be in on this now. We should have our team in
place and be in consultation with the Americans at this moment.
(1610)
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on Bill
S-23, particularly in view of the events of September 11. Those events have
changed the whole complexion upon which this debate has taken place and will
take place.
All members of the House have had an opportunity to
focus on many of the issues, which have been neglected for a long time, and how
we can ensure the security of Canadians at home and abroad.
The bill is a balancing act. Basically, it is about
ensuring that we have rapid and easy movement of goods, services and people
across our border to the United States. At the same, it is about preventing
individuals and elements which are of risk to Canadians from crossing the
border. That is the challenge. The bill manages to address that to some
extent.
Economic exchange between Canada and the United States
is $500 billion a year and 108 million people cross the border every year,
which is massive. However, the our current situation is less than
ideal.
Before I go into that, I would be remiss if I did not
make some comments on the events of September 11 and how they relate to our own
internal security.
The Osama bin Ladens of this world did not materialize
out of thin air. They are the sharp and extreme edge of some very real problems
that, to some extent, have been neglected by the world. Foreign policy
challenges have been perceived to have been dealt with in a fair and
even-handed fashion.
People like Osama bin Laden and the individuals who
follow him see the sword as their only recourse, and there is no room for
negotiation. They decided to blow up the negotiating table rather than sit at
it.
Those individuals who are filled with hatred, as is
this man, who are able and willing to twist a beautiful religion like Islam
into something it does not represent, have made a very clear decision and have
sent a very clear message to other countries that they are not willing to
engage in peaceful negotiations. Therefore, a multifactorial response,
including military, international financial institutions and other levers will
be required to stop these individuals.
Once we take Mr. bin Laden out, no doubt he will be
replaced by others of his ilk. I believe a lot of people who follow individuals
like Osama bin Laden would be able to change if our foreign policy took a bit
of a different tact, along with foreign policies of other countries being
changed somewhat.
There are a couple of issues that I would like to
address. Western countries have to at least be perceived as fair-minded in
their dealings with international problems, be it the Palestinian-Israeli
question, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq or others. It must be perceived that we are
dealing with these issues and problems in a fair and even-handed
fashion.
People like Osama bin Laden or those individuals who
were celebrating the mass murder of innocent civilians in the United States, as
we saw on television, use this type of manipulation. Curiously enough, a lot of
the information they receive is through a very thick sieve or a thick prism
which warped. Therefore, the information they are fed often bears absolutely no
resemblance to reality.
I have heard outrageous allegations against the west,
the Israelis and other Arab states from individuals who support the likes of
Osama bin Laden. They are a complete and utter fabrication. If we were
subjected to only those fabricated messages of hate which try to stimulate a
group of people to suggest that another group will kill or threaten them,
perhaps other people would respond in a similar fashion. I would hope
not.
(1615)
It leads us to believe and leads us to show that
communication and how communication is used is essential for those individuals
who try to stimulate people with that kind of hatred. Therefore within that is
an opportunity for west to try to get the message out to the people in the
Middle East that the west has been a friend to Muslims. The west tried to
defend Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. The west tried to help the Kurds in
northern Iraq who were being massacred by Saddam Hussein. The west tried to be
fair minded with respect to the Palestinian-Israeli situation. Canada has
supported a policy of an independent Palestinian state and an independent
Israeli state living side by side in peace. Canada has not tried to take sides
and we have tried to be even-handed.
Unfortunately, this message does not get out to the
shantytowns of the West Bank nor does not it get out to the types of
individuals who Osama bin Laden and people like him who they try to curry
favour. It does not get through to some people in Afghanistan. Therein lies the
challenge for us in the west.
We have to improve communication, improve connection
and improve discourse. We have to have a greater number of meetings between
people of different philosophical backgrounds. That is the only way we will be
able to achieve a measure of peace. By doing so, we will be able to remove some
of the supporters of terrorists like Osama bin Laden. It will not remove all of
them. As I said before, individuals filled with that kind of hate, who are
willing to completely warp and misrepresent a faith like Islam and who are
willing to lie to their people are individuals beyond the pale and stage of
negotiation.
With respect to our border security and our ability to
deal with this problem, this will require a multifactorial approach. This will
not only include foreign policy initiatives with our allies and the Americans
to root out individuals such as Mr. bin Laden, to root out his support and to
root out individuals who think it is acceptable to hide and coddle him, but we
will also have to go after the money, which is essential in trying to cut the
support to these individuals.
We can do that through the international financial
institutions. The IFIs and their countries, or the international family which
includes all of us, have to develop a comprehensive plan of action to find out
the economic resources and sources of money that support these terrorist
groups. Once we find them, we have to apprehend those funds. Cutting off the
money supply is one of the most effective ways to weaken these terrorist
organizations. It is absolutely essential.
My colleagues have repeatedly, in very eloquent
statements, brought out what has happened to our defence forces. The Prime
Minister has gone to the United States to speak with Mr. Bush, presumably to
articulate some of the things that Canada can do in this initiative against
terrorists. The Prime Minister knows full well that for over eight years he and
his government have gutted our military to appalling degrees.
In the 1994 white paper an obligation was made by the
government. It said it could put in the theatre in short order a battalion plus
a brigade or 6,000 plus people. According to our defence forces, it would take
a minimum of three months to introduce a brigade into the field. Furthermore,
we could not sustain that brigade for six months. That is a terrible
indictment, not on the men and women of our military who put their lives on the
line and who are working under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, but on
this government's willingness to gut our military.
With respect to our navy, at this point in time we are
able to put one frigate in the theatre, in part because we have had a massive
loss and attrition of skilled individuals able to man our frigates.
Furthermore, our ability to promote their strength has
been severely hampered by the fact that we do not have functional Sea Kings.
(1620)
Our Sea Kings are more than 30 years old. Some are
dropping out of the sky. We do not have faith in functioning of those
helicopters, which severely compromises the ability of our forces.
With respect to our land forces, the hardware such as
tanks, et cetera necessary to back them up is severely lacking.
With respect to air, according to the 1994 white paper,
Canada was supposed to put a minimum of 24 to 48 fighters into the theatre, if
called upon. Can we do this? No, we cannot. Furthermore, the CF-18s we have are
becoming incompatible with their American counterparts because of the high tech
hardware that each of those planes requires. That means our CF-18s cannot nor
will they be likely to function appropriately, other than in a token fashion,
in any kind of required air effort. I wonder if the public is aware of what is
going on. Our military men and women know about this because they have been
labouring under it for a very long time.
We also need to look at our internal security
mechanisms. CSIS is the agency we rely upon for internal security, yet over the
last seven years its budget has been cut by at least 30%. Furthermore, it has
had a 28% cut in manpower, which has severely compromised our internal security
forces to engage in surveillance and apprehend, along with the RCMP,
individuals who are a threat to our security and international
security.
A gentleman who used to work as a very high level
intelligence officer made the comment that Canada had become an aircraft
carrier jihad for those groups that were willing to engage in terrorist
activities abroad. This did not happen overnight. This happened over years
because terrorist organizations knew they could easily gain access into Canada.
Our ability to engage in surveillance has been severely compromised.
We understand the economic restrictions that the
government is under and we support balanced cuts. However, we do not support
activities and actions that compromise the security of Canadians at home and
abroad. As a party, we are asking the government to put money back into the
security elements that we desperately required yesterday, not two years from
now. We will continually ask for and demand this.
We know that hardworking individuals in our immigration
services have been frustrated for a long time. Over the last few years, my
colleagues have repeatedly put out constructive suggestions to strengthen our
immigration so that true refugees can come into Canada under what we feel are
our humanitarian obligations. We have also asked that those individuals who are
a security risk and those refugees coming here under false pretenses be
prevented from entering into Canada.
Time and time again we have demonstrated that the
government has failed to initiate in the House an effective immigration bill
that would allow us to accomplish those objectives. We have also asked the
minister of immigration why there is not proper surveillance of individuals,
who claim refugee status, once they come to Canada.
Other models in the world work better than ours.
Although Australia has its own difficulties, we can learn from some of its
lessons which will enable us to streamline our immigration
procedures.
My private member's bill would put the onus of
identification, barring any extenuating circumstances, directly on the
shoulders of persons claiming refugee status. They would be required to prove
their identification as opposed to coming in claiming they did not have
identification. Ninety per cent of individuals who are false refugees come
through our borders by way of our airports. I do not know why we have not
introduced that.
My colleague made a very impressive comment in her
statement by members today requesting that Canadians have a photo
identification card, a universal card, that would allow us to be identified
from other individuals.
(1625)
If our social insurance and health card numbers were on
that card it would go a long way to removing fraud which costs the health care
system and HRDC a lot of money. My colleague's suggestion is very intelligent
and easily managed, and one that the government could do almost overnight. This
would save tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars and add a very important
element of security into our system.
Another purpose of the bill is to reduce the amount of
illegal drugs coming into Canada. I was in Costa Rico and in Colombia earlier
this year meeting with President Pastrana. What we have in front of us right
now is a grand opportunity to address the trade in illegal drugs. What we can
do is as follows. First, we have to recognize that the war on drugs that we
have today is a failure. If we think we can go to Colombia and burn all the
coca and poppy crops that are growing there and somehow believe this will solve
the problem, it will not. Those crops will spread to Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,
Venezuela and Brazil, which is what is happening now.
If there is one thing the Taliban has done correctly
over the last few months it has been to burn its poppy crops. We know the
smuggling of heroin is still a serious problem in those countries but how do we
deal with it? We must accept the fact that trying to address this problem at
the production source will not win the so-called war against drugs.
Senator McCain of the United States made a very
interesting comment when I was there. He said that we need to decrease
consumption in North America. He could not be more right. If we want to address
the war on drugs we must deal with it in our own house in Canada and indeed in
North America. We need to decrease consumption.
Europe has some exciting models that would work very
well. It has some new treatment modalities which look at addicts, not in a
punitive or criminal fashion but from a medical perspective. Some of those
models have a 60% one year success rate for the worst of the worst heroin
addicts, which is extraordinary. It works very well.
Canada can use another avenue which has widespread
support but it requires some leadership. It is the introduction of
import-export permits for the precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of
cocaine and heroin.
A few months ago Canada's knuckles were wrapped
publicly and internationally, along with Norway and some other European
countries. The reason was very interesting. We, as countries, were wilfully and
knowingly selling the precursor chemicals required to produce cocaine and
heroin. We know we are selling these chemicals to individuals who are using
them to produce drugs but we say that it is not our problem. It is our problem
and we can do something about it. We can do something through the introduction
of import-export permits. In other words, a company would need an export permit
for the bulk export of these precursor chemicals and the recipient would need
an import permit. This would enable us to track and identify the individuals
producing these drugs. Then we could stop it. If they do not have the chemicals
to produce the cocaine and the heroin they cannot produce those drugs. We would
cut it off at our side, which is doable.
Another thing we can do is implement something called
the RICO amendments, the racketeering, investigation and criminal organization
amendments, that they have in the United States. This would enable us to go
after the money. It would enable us to go after those organizations that are
engaging in criminal activities. It would choke off the money supply for
them.
In conclusion, a number of elements need to be added to
the bill in terms of strengthening our borders. We need to strengthen our
defence forces, CSIS and our immigration borders. We also need to ensure that
our customs officers have the ability to apprehend from a criminal perspective,
not just be individuals who are trying to collect money for Revenue
Canada.
(1630)
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas,
NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond with care to the
comments of the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca. In the context of this
debate on customs legislation, he made some interesting points about the impact
of the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11 and how they might affect this
legislation and Canada's response to it.
In looking at that response, I suggest there are two
fundamental elements that we have to address. One is the issue of
accountability and the other is the issue of prevention. In terms of
accountability, it needs to be done within the framework of international
co-operation; to hold the perpetrators of these terrorist acts to account, as
well as their accomplices and those who harbour them.
In the context of prevention, there are two aspects.
One is more effective surveillance combined with other security measures to
enhance public safety. Certainly we have to look very seriously at that. The
second is attention to the social, political and economic conditions that
promote or are conducive to terrorism.
I want to be very clear. I am not speaking in any
manner to suggest that this in any way defends acts of terrorism. It is
precisely the opposite. If we want to understand and prevent terrorist attacks,
as I heard the hon. member say, it is essential to look at what breeds the
desperation, hopelessness and despair that ultimately drives people to suicide
bombings or to this terrible terrorist act of September 11.
I want to take issue with the hon. member's reading of
history. He referred to the question of why it is that the Muslim community,
for example, in many cases, hates the United States, its foreign policy and
western foreign policy. He said that they should not do that because the west
has been supportive of them in a number of respects. I think we must be
cautious and accurate in our review of history.
When the member talks about the west's support for the
Kurds in northern Iraq, what about the Kurds in Turkey? When he talks about the
tragic situation in the Middle East and the Palestinians, surely he has to
recognize that the United States has been supporting the Israeli policy of
illegal settlements and occupation for far too long.
Does the member not recognize that is the tragic
history and not what he has recounted, as well as the impact of sanctions on
the people of Iraq?
Mr. Keith Martin:
Mr. Speaker, my friend from the NDP made a number of
points. However I do take issue with him that poverty is the root cause of why
Mr. bin Laden and his group engage in what they do. Mr. bin Laden is worth $300
million. If Mr. bin Laden is worth $300 million, it refutes the idea of poverty
being the root cause.
If he is talking about poverty as a root cause of this,
then presumably they would have numerous terrorists coming out of the Congo,
Liberia or Sierra Leone but that is not the case.
I agree to some extent with the hon. member when he
says that there has been a perception on the part of individuals in certain
parts of the Middle East of an unfair application of foreign policy. To some
extent that is a failure of communication and we have not been able to get our
message out to the individuals concerned.
Yes, he is right when he says that we have turned a
blind eye to the illegal introduction of settlements in Palestine, which we do
not support in any way, shape or form and believe we should take a much
stronger stance on. However, the issue is much more complicated than
that.
The Osama bin Ladens of this world are the sharp edge
of some very rare problems and we cannot negotiate with those individuals. Even
if the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were to be resolved, it would
not be enough because Osama bin Laden hates western culture. He perceives the
west as being a threat to the tenets of Islam. That is a central issue for
people of his ilk.
On the issue of economics, the member should know that
the leaders of the Taliban are quite affluent. While the Afghani people have
been suffering beyond comprehension for years and live in grinding poverty,
members of the Taliban have been lining their pockets with money from illegal
trucking in the southern part of Afghanistan and through the sale of illegal
drugs. That is how they are actually living. They drive around in Mercedes
Benzes while their people are starving to death. I would ask the member to
consider those points.
(1635)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay,
BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am stunned to hear nothing in the
remarks of the official opposition, following the discussions and questions
that we have asked of the government today, about whether or not they have a
budget and about how much it was going to invest in terms of dollar figures to
implement better security without hindering the steady flow of goods and
services. We need to allocate more money and more staff, not simply change the
technology. Yes, there is missing infrastructure, but there is also a lack of
staff at customs and at the border. We would like to congratulate the customs
agents, given what has happened since September 11.
However, I would like to ask the member what kind of
money would be necessary to improve border security.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin:
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have repeatedly made
representations to the government on how we can increase the funding and where
it should go to make a more effective customs and revenue agency. I echo the
member's comments to say that the men and women who work for customs and
revenue have been trying to do a very good job under very difficult
circumstances.
For years my colleagues have repeatedly put forth
suggestions to the government on how to improve the system but they fell on
deaf ears until this catastrophe took place. We will continue to put forth
suggestions on how to improve both domestic and international
security.
On the issue of defence, we have advocated a $2 billion
infusion into our defence budget urgently.
The House may be interested to know that in terms of
ourselves and NATO, Canada spends the second lowest amount of all NATO
countries in terms of a percentage of our GDP on military. That is sad. We have
known this for a long time. A year ago NATO rapped our knuckles because we were
unable to meet our commitments internationally.
We have asked for a $2 billion infusion into defence.
We would like to increase our percentage of GDP from about 1% today to at least
1.5% in the future. We feel that is a reasonable amount to bring our armed
forces up to snuff.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian
Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, I am the critic for
customs at the border crossings, and I have visited a number of these crossings
in the last little while. Every time we get ideas or solutions from the
grassroots level at the crossings for what they feel needs immediate attention,
such as the situation they are now facing, they are looked upon by the
government as simplistic. It is not a long term solution but there are
definitely some immediate needs.
I would suggest the problem exists because it is an
operation that is run by Revenue Canada, which has very little knowledge of law
enforcement and the apprehension of these type of criminals. I believe these
should be shifted to law enforcement bureaucracies, such as the solicitor
general and justice. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on
that.
Mr. Keith Martin:
Mr. Speaker, we have for some time lamented and made
some strong comments on the fact that the judicial aspect of customs officers
has been removed to make them revenue collecting officers rather than
individuals who are able to uphold the law.
I know my colleague from Wild Rose has been travelling
from coast to coast and meeting with the grassroots. I would encourage the
government to listen to his suggestions as well as those of the grassroots, the
men and women who work at customs and revenue. They have a lot of good
suggestions to put forward that would improve the system. We are also not
listening to the men and women in our defence forces. They also have some
excellent suggestions on how we can improve our department of
defence.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Bélair):
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform
the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Trade; the hon.
member for Lanark—Carleton, Infrastructure.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that the prayers and
concerns from the people of Okanagan--Shuswap with regard to the September 11
terrorist activities in the United States have been overwhelming. Support in my
office has also been overwhelming. In regard to Bill S-23 and more important
the amendment, it states:
|
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. |
I want everyone to be assured that I do not think there
is anyone in the House who is against streamlining the border if we
could.
The bill was drafted before the September 11 tragedy,
and I believe that it is outdated. The government's first and foremost priority
in any country has to be to the safety and well-being of its law-abiding
citizens. We have not achieved that goal since my coming to the House in
1993.
Countermeasures against terrorist and gang related
activities were mentioned in the form of bills over the course of the past two
years. However time and again the government refused to act.
It is not nice to talk about this in hindsight. If we
had enacted legislation that was put before the House when the concerns were
first raised, maybe we would not be trying to get the government to act on
legislation that all of North America is in very dire straits to have. The 2000
CSIS report states:
Individuals with links to
international terrorist groups use foreign countries, including Canada, as a
base to plan terrorist acts and provide logistical support for terrorist
activities in their country of origin or against other target nations. In
Canada, supporters of terrorism engage in fundraising, planning operations, and
transferring money and materiel overseas...Canada belongs to international
institutions and bodies, participates in peacekeeping missions and hosts major
international events, all of which are potential targets for terrorists. Canada
remains a world leader in accepting refugees and immigrants, and will continue
to receive a steady flow of people from regions of strife. Some will bring the
politics of conflict with them. For Canada, politically motivated violence
remains largely an extension of overseas discord. Individuals with links to
international terrorist groups use Canada primarily as a base from which to
orchestrate terrorist activities abroad. The intelligence services of certain
foreign governments continue to be active in Canada-- |
Martin Collacott, a former Canadian ambassador to Asia
and the Middle East, said that Americans had genuine concerns about the ease
with which international terrorists entered and remained in Canada with the
intent of mounting attacks on the U.S. He also said that Canada gave a low
priority to identifying, tracking and removing suspected terrorists.
Travel and commerce across the U.S.-Canada border is
important to both countries. There is no doubt about that. No one wants to
disrupt these flows, yet a crackdown on terrorists will be meaningless without
a serious push in Canada toward greater security regarding immigrants and
refugees.
(1645)
Canada shares vulnerability to terrorist infiltration.
All open societies pay a price for tolerance and civil liberties. According to
John Thompson, director of the Toronto Mackenzie Institute specializing in
organized crime and political instability, the thing that makes Canada
different from the British, French and Americans is that we tend to be more
politically immature. We have a political culture that does not go to war. We
have had a view since the 1930s that we are in a fireproof house. We are
supposed to be the international boy scouts who are trusted by all other
countries.
He went on to say that it has coloured Canadian
attitudes toward security. He noted that until this week the largest terrorist
strike was the downing of the Air India jet in 1985 where more than 330 people
were killed. He goes on to say that the fundamentalists who drove a truckful of
explosives over the Washington border in 1990 was one such arrival.
Mr. Ressam arrived in Canada and was caught with a fake
French passport. He claimed refugee status and then renounced his claim. He had
a history of associations with terrorists and yet the government did nothing
about deporting him.
Mr. Collacott said the Ressam case brought out the fact
that terrorist suspects could enter the country easily and that there were
problems that were still not removed.
Do our brothers in the states have concerns about what
is going on in Canada? After reading these CSIS reports they certainly do. Not
only the Americans have concerns but people in Canada have the same concerns.
They want to know what the government will do to address the problems. It has
done nothing. Instead it has decided to study the issue.
Terrorists do not study the issue; they act. While we
are in the House I guarantee that they are already making plans. The British
foreign secretary said:
We come together and we work out how
they face that choice, but one thing is very, very clear. As soon as we know,
or have a very good idea as to who is responsible for this action, those states
which harbour terrorist activity, in the words of the United Nations Security
Council Resolution, have to be held to account and cannot any longer have the
kind of easy ride they have had in the past. |
I could not agree more. If any country allows terrorist
organizations to raise funds to be taken out or used within that country and
use funds to make bombs and killing devices, that country has to be held
accountable.
We have overwhelming evidence, not only from CSIS but
from other reports that the government knows, that there are over 50 terrorist
organizations actively working in Canada and yet nothing is being done.
I question the wisdom of the government when last
Tuesday it voted against a motion brought before the House by the official
opposition. It stated:
That this House call upon the
government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation similar in principle to the
United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000, and that such legislation provide
for: |
|
the
naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in
Canada; |
|
a
complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism, and provisions
for the seizure of assets belonging to terrorists or terrorist organizations;
|
|
the
immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of
the Financing of Terrorism; |
|
the
creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in
Canada or inciting terrorist acts from Canada; |
|
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. |
(1650)
I have to question, if the government's first and
foremost priority is to the safety and well-being of its law-abiding citizens,
why it voted against the motion. I do not understand it.
I see I am out of time, although I have a lot more
information I would like to share with the House.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast,
Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill S-23 has certainly been
very revealing in one sense. I know a lot of it has focused on the amendment
before us which would include the issue of terrorism in the bill that would
streamline the movement of people and goods across the border.
As I sat and listened to the comments of various
members in the House it became very noticeable that they are all free traders.
They want to see the movement of goods and services north and south in this
country.
The NAFTA , struck by governments previous to one that
sits in the House today, has become so essential to our economy, to our
well-being, to who we are not only as Canadians but as people who share the
North American continent, that we do not want to see any hindrance to the flow
of goods and services within the North American continent.
That is very important to note because with that there
will be a will to make sure that does not happen, that goods, services and
people will not be hindered in their movement north and south.
In retrospect I recall campaign promises in the past to
bury such things as NAFTA and any free trade rules or agreements. The reality
is that now we have such agreements which are so essential to our well-being
and we want to protect them.
I have certainly brought forward the one question that
has been asked not just by myself but by other members of the House. How can we
have streamlined, legitimate, cross-border trade and travel almost unhindered
and still deal with the issue that has been brought before us by the amendment
from this side of the House concerning the security of our combined
countries?
I will repeat again the words of Director Ward Elcock
who in 1998 called Canada one of the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets. He
elaborated by saying that with perhaps the singular exception of the United
States there are more international terrorist groups active here than in any
other country in the world.
That is quite a statement to make. Apart from the
United States, we have more terrorist groups and cells working here than in any
other country in the world.
If he were the only one who said that, maybe we could
say the statement was taken out of context or that it was slightly exaggerated.
However he was not the only one who said it.
In 1999 after a special Senate committee on security
and intelligence reviewed the issue of terrorist groups, the CSIS chief of
strategic planning, David Harris, referred to Canada as a big jihad aircraft
carrier for launching strikes against the United States. We had two individuals
saying that very same thing in slightly different words.
I can remember coming into the House for the first time
in 1994 and listening to the then solicitor general who now sits in the House
as Deputy Prime Minister.
(1655)
He said at that time that serious concerns had been
passed on to him by CSIS about the instability which could result from groups
that were actively involved in this country, that if they were to rise up they
could destabilize the country. That is quite a broad statement to make, that
they could actually destabilize the country.
Here is the issue which is before the government and
every member of the House. We want the movement of goods and services to flow
along so that our economies and our businesses do well. At the same time we
want to provide security that will please not only our neighbours, because they
are the ones that can take action against the movement of goods and services,
but we also have to consider and please the citizens of our country. That is
the issue at hand here on everything we say and do from this point forward. On
every piece of legislation, whether it is through Revenue Canada and customs,
whether it is through transport or even our security agencies, that is the
question that will have to be answered.
How can we do it? Some time ago, prior to the Reform
Party coming into parliament, a previous government tried to address that
issue. Just before that party was voted out of power, it did come forward with
a similar kind of concern and tried to address it as a government.
Unfortunately those efforts were all cast aside when the Liberal government
took over in 1993.
In my opinion there is only one way to address the
issue of having a security network set up that would please the citizens of
Canada and our American counterparts and also achieve the goal of almost
unhindered cross-border trade. Until that issue is addressed, I do not think we
will see unhindered movement of people and trade.
We must harmonize our policies with the United States
and consider it in the same way that the NATO alliance works, that a strike
against any one member of the alliance is a strike against all members; a
strike against any one is a strike against all. In other words we should have a
policy that is in harmony with our neighbours to the south. If they are
concerned about security in a certain way, we should be just as concerned about
it. We must harmonize our policies so that we have a security network. Two
years ago at a united alternative meeting I suggested that we have a security
network that falls under one ministry. A new ministry should be created that
will look after the security network. I can give ample reasons for us to do
that.
One thing I have discovered through the nine years I
have been in parliament and being part of the different committees that
examined the groups, agencies and enforcement areas is that they are all
working independently of one another. Often information is not being shared.
Their enforcement areas are all treated independently by the
government.
Some groups should be bolstered up and lifted and
resourced properly. Unfortunately the government takes the opposite point of
view and they fall flat and later are disbanded or quietly removed from the
scene. That is one area we should work on as a government, not only the
government side, but the opposition side as well.
(1700)
We should start planning now and work toward having one
ministry that is in charge of our national security and even further, our North
American security network.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress
Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, we are here today to address Bill S-23.
This is a bill to facilitate trade between the United States and Canada. I will
spend a few minutes talking about trade in agriculture since that is one of the
areas I have an interest in.
Trade in agriculture, exports and imports between the
United States and Canada, runs into the billions of dollars. For example, we
export billions of dollars per year in grain and oilseed foodstuffs alone. We
import almost $300 million in bulk grain alone from the United States. We
export $1.3 billion worth of livestock and import more than $150 million in
just live animals from the United States. We export more than $600 million
worth of pork products and import $100 million.
In the past we have had conflicts on our border
regarding agricultural issues and products. The cattle industry has been
affected a couple of times by R-CALF, an organization in the United States that
has come forward to try to challenge the import and export of animals to the
United States. Durum wheat has been challenged often by senators along the
border states, particularly along the border of North Dakota and Manitoba. We
see recurring problems with softwood lumber across Canada.
For those of us who live on this side of the border, it
is necessary for the border to be open. Not only is it necessary for us but for
the people of the United States as well, because we are their biggest trading
partner taking a full 25% of their exports.
The border serves several functions. My riding is
located right along the Montana border and it has always been an area of
interest to the locals. Many of the people who have settled in our area came
from Minnesota. They came from Scandinavian countries, moved through Minnesota,
came up through Montana and settled right along the border. The early pioneers
were used to going back and forth across that border.
My grandfather talked about unloading a three wheel
tractor in Chinook, Montana and trying to bring it across the prairie. As they
drove it north they tipped it twice and had to go to one of their U.S.
neighbours to get a horse to pull the tractor back onto its wheels. Building
supplies were often shipped into small Montana towns such as Turner, Harlem,
Chinook and then the products were brought up to Canada. The border was also an
interesting place to be during the prohibition era. There were a lot of
products brought back and forth that often were not approved by customs.
We have friends on both sides of the border. When I was
growing up I would travel to the United States regularly. The border was open.
Often it seemed that we had more connections north and south than we did east
and west. Lately traffic to the U.S. from our area has been curtailed since our
dollar has fallen to the level it has. Many of the people in our area have quit
spending as much money as they used to in the United States.
We also have programs in our area such as Canpass. We
have been talking about setting up electronic crossings. Those programs I
understand are now under review.
We need to have trade with our biggest trading partner.
Because of terrorism and the brutal treatment of innocent people which has
taken place, the border has changed. It has changed the ability of people and
goods to move back and forth across the border.
I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the
type of border crossings. I ask members present, what would it be like to be a
customs agent at an isolated border crossing in the conditions that we have
now? What would it be like for a customs agent to be overseen by an agency that
has a lack of direction toward its employees?
I am not sure if members are aware, but it took two
days for the agency to let the local customs agents know that they were
supposed to fly the flags at half-mast, but they had already done it. They were
given directions to search all vehicles but were given no directions about what
they were searching for.
As we heard earlier today, employees have also been
told that they should not be speaking to MPs, particularly opposition MPs. What
would it be like to be an employee in an isolated area and feel there is no
recourse to bring out concerns?
What would it be like to work in an isolated area and
know there is a lack of protection? The RCMP in many of these areas are miles
and miles away. They can be from 15 to 70 miles away from a border crossing.
(1705)
In our area alone, the RCMP officers themselves have to
cover huge areas. There is one officer on duty and that is it for an area that
covers approximately 2,000 to 2,500 square miles. The officer's job is to cover
that area as well as the border crossings. I do not think it is realistic to
expect that person to do that job.
We also have to ask what it would be like to be at an
isolated crossing with improper training and equipment. I understand at the
larger crossings agents are being trained in the use of batons and pepper spray
but that training will not be given to the agents at the smaller crossings.
Where else would it be needed? At the large crossings there are a dozen agents
on duty and there are people to back them up. At the small crossings this
protection is required.
A question that also arises is whether or not agents
should have sidearms. We have heard today that we need to take this agency out
of the revenue collection business. It is not just a revenue collecting group.
This group is expected to provide law enforcement. These people need to have
protection. On the American side of the border there are agents with sidearms,
agents with fully automatic weapons, agents with bulletproof vests on the backs
of which the word “police” is spelled out in six-inch letters. On our side, the
agents finally do have bulletproof vests but there is nothing to indicate that
people should stop or respect them.
We have actually been accused of trying to make
political points on this, but it is important. For almost 10 years, first the
Reform Party and then the Alliance party tried to talk to the government about
the need for reform of Canada's criminal justice system, the immigration system
and the border crossing system. The government has chosen not to listen and in
some ways those chickens are now coming home to roost.
Another problem is the lack of proper allocation of
funding. The government is only too willing to overtax people and to take 50%
of their income. It tries to restrict businesses through its taxation policies.
It is committed to regional economic development programs that often do nothing
but waste money. There are entrenched attitudes in the bureaucracy. There is an
improper allocation of resources and because of that people who are on the
ground cannot do an adequate job.
Looking at the structure of a pyramid, it works far
better if the base of the pyramid is sitting on the ground. Looking at a
business model, businesses want to have most of their people on the ground
doing the work and fewer people involved in the decision making and those kinds
of things. The bureaucracy at Canada customs seems to be almost the opposite.
The people at the bottom are trying to do their jobs, to provide law
enforcement and collect revenue. They are being run by bureaucrats and are
given their instructions from above and the instructions often have very little
to do with their jobs.
Canada has a porous border and we need to do something
about it. Government needs to show leadership in this area. Canada has a poor
immigration set-up. We need to do something to get those people who
consistently break our laws and who think they can stay in Canada out of our
country so they are not a danger to our citizens.
In conclusion, we need trade. It is obvious to all of
us that we need to have trade. We also need a reasonably secure border. The
time for playing around, studying and consulting is over. The government has
been in power long enough that it should be able to bring in policy that is
effective. We need to deal with the lack of direction, protection and proper
allocation. We have the time and the opportunity now. Let us not throw that
away.
(1710)
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to partake in this debate
on Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to
other acts.
The bill proposes to streamline legitimate cross border
trade and travel through electronic monitoring, self-assessment, advance
information and pre-approval.
As already pointed out today, the official opposition
hesitantly supports Bill S-23 but does so reluctantly given the government's
poor record in maintaining the integrity of our borders, particularly the long,
mostly unprotected border we share with our neighbours to the south.
Canada is a trade dependent country and as such the
economic viability and stability of manufacturing companies operating within
Canada rely on the ease with which goods flow between Canada and the United
States. A threat to the openness we enjoy along the Canada-U.S. border is a
threat to the billions of dollars of trade and the tens of thousands of jobs we
appreciate and have here in Canada. Over 87% of our trade is done with our
neighbours to the south, the United States.
This weekend the governor of the Bank of Canada warned
that the fallout from terrorist attacks on the United States may push our
weakened economy into a recession. David Dodge warned the government against
trying to bail out the economy with additional spending or being foolhardy and
going back to deficit financing, which Minister of Finance Paul Martin has
indicated he may have to do.
Mr. Dodge stated:
|
--economic growth in the third quarter will likely be close to
zero or slightly negative, and we will continue to feel the adverse effects
into the fourth quarter. |
Furthermore, the governor of the Bank of Canada said
that it is certainly possible that the economy will slip into a recession,
which as we all know and has been discussed here lately is commonly defined as
two quarters of negative growth.
Last week the Minister of Finance said that he will not
rule out a deficit if it protects Canada from terrorism. Claiming that the
number one priority for the government is to protect Canadians, the finance
minister says there will have to be additional spending in terms of our
national security.
The official opposition fully supports increased
spending for our security and for our intelligence agencies. We have pointed
out numerous times in the House, and not just in the wake of the horrific
events of September 11, that CSIS and the RCMP are underfunded and
underresourced.
Having said that, we would counter that we do not need
to be plunged back into a deficit situation if the finance minister and his
government would simply prioritize spending, something that should have been
done years ago. It is time to put to an end the frivolous spending on such
things as fountains and golf courses and reallocate our scarce dollars to
support the front lines of defence, CSIS, the RCMP and national defence. These
three have been financially starved for far too long.
As stated earlier today, we cannot consider liberalized
border procedures without first considering how to best restore the integrity
of our borders. A company based right here in Ottawa is developing a passenger
screening system that it says could have foiled last week's terrorist attacks.
The system developed for the transport department by the Ottawa branch of a
United States based corporation, Intrinsix Corporation, combines video cameras,
reservation computers, metal detectors and x-ray machines to help identify
potential terrorists. The company says that its system, which works by
networking all of those elements together, would have triggered security alerts
when hijackers boarded four flights in the United States last week.
(1715)
In last week's Ottawa Citizen, Claude Clouthier,
manager of the Intrinsix Ottawa office, said that the strength of the airport
security data fusion system is that it displays all the information on one
computer screen. Mr. Clouthier reported to the Ottawa Citizen that
Transport Canada was funding development of the system through an agreement
with the United States to create new anti-terrorism technology but that the
project had apparently been stalled over cost concerns. “Cost is always the
issue, because it is a very complex problem”, said Mr. Clouthier.
We would agree with Mr. Clouthier. When we deal with
national security or when we deal with CSIS and RCMP, funding and resourcing is
a problem with the government.
Furthermore, the Intrinsix manager said that he
believes Transport Canada has a renewed interest in the project since the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon on September
11. Intrinsix received a $140,000 contract in February 1999 to develop a
working prototype of the system. The Intrinsix preliminary report on the system
recommends that Transport Canada install video surveillance cameras at check-in
counters and boarding gates. The report noted that the lack of integration of
security machines makes it difficult to track a passenger's bags through an
airport without sending a security guard to make a physical check.
It is absolutely appalling that a system such as this
one developed by this Ottawa based company has not been used in Canadian
airports and that only now, after the attack on America, has our government
decided that perhaps it should bring forward some precautionary
measures.
The Liberal government's failure to continue funding
for such systems is indicative of its relaxed attitude toward security in
Canada. Unfortunately we have a government that is reactive, not proactive,
regarding the security and the safety of our citizens. It is for this reason
that we are reluctant to support a liberalization of our border controls. We
are also reluctant to entertain loosening border controls due to the large
volume of illegal migrants currently crossing our border so freely, illegals
who may ultimately provide a stream of terrorists gaining entry into the United
States by circumventing Canadian and United States border controls since we
have no exit controls.
No exit controls, as I pointed out in April of this
year, mean that it is impossible to calculate how many people remain in Canada
illegally, how many have slipped into the United States or how many have
returned to their countries of origin or have gone elsewhere.
As of October 23, 1998, there were 6,110 warrants for
removal issued against persons deemed to have abandoned or withdrawn their
refugee claims. Of these, 640 warrants were executed and the persons were
removed from Canada; 240 warrants were cancelled, that is, they were no longer
deemed refugees so they were cancelled; and there was no action taken on the
remaining 5,272.
Six thousand, one hundred and ten applications and five
thousand, two hundred and seventy-two warrants still sit in a dusty, dingy
corner somewhere because we do not have the resourcing to deal with those
warrants, or the backbone. Quite obviously this is a very serious problem that
must immediately be rectified to restore our border integrity.
More than nine million commercial shipments enter
Canada each year, 75% at land border ports and the rest at international
airports, marine ports, postal facilities and bonded warehouses. Approximately
one million marine containers enter Canadian ports annually and another 200,000
enter by truck or rail after being off-loaded in United States marine
ports.
I would like to point out that most illicit drugs
arrive in Canada by aircraft, marine container and truck. At least 100 tonnes
of hashish, 15 to 24 tonnes of cocaine and 4 tonnes of liquid hashish are
smuggled into Canada each year.
I do not think I need to point out that drugs are
synonymous with organized crime. Drugs and organized crime are very relevant
when we refer to the fundraising of terrorist organizations.
(1720)
An Ottawa Citizen article dated March 3, 1999,
under the title “RCMP battles to halt flow of Colombian drugs”, states that
Canada is particularly vulnerable to drug trafficking, the principal source of
revenue for most crime groups. According to the drug analysis section of the
RCMP, smugglers are attracted to Canada because of the low risk of arrest due
to limited police resources that “have stymied investigations”:
|
Smugglers are attracted by the sprawling, largely unmonitored
Canadian coastline, the low risk of arrest and the relatively light
penalties-- |
I therefore reiterate that we support measures aimed at
liberalizing trade but we do so only as we ensure that all necessary measures
are in place to effectively control organizations and terrorists and those who
support them.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Surrey
Central I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill S-23, an act to amend
the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
The people of Surrey Central live in very close
proximity to the U.S. border and they travel to the U.S. Many transport
merchandise in trucks while others go for pleasure. Bill S-23 has a direct
impact on their businesses as well as on their lifestyle.
Over 85% of our GDP comes from exports to the U.S. and
our bilateral trade is over one and a quarter billion dollars per day. More
than 108 million people cross the border between our two countries. Security is
of paramount importance due to the situation that unfolded on September 11.
As a past member of the subcommittee on organized crime
I know the kind of stuff which is not only scary but also very challenging. At
one time only four RCMP officers patrolled the entire B.C. border with the U.S.
Bill S-23 becomes particularly important but nothing has changed in Bill S-23
since September 11.
From time to time members of the Canadian Alliance
pointed out the deficiencies in government policies. One would think that with
this momentous event the government would wake up. It only shows that the weak
Liberal government does not have the political will to be proactive and improve
the border security in the best interest of the people of Canada as well as of
America.
I am not suggesting a knee-jerk reaction. However the
overall approach of the government has been a culture of neglect. There has
been neglect on the budget, health care, defence, agriculture, foreign policy,
safety and security, anti-terrorism legislation, et cetera.
Bill S-23 does not take into account the events of
September 11 which have fundamentally changed the landscape of our customs
policy and border security. We need legislation that recognizes that fact.
Instead of recognizing that and amending the bill, the government pushes ahead
as if nothing happened. This approach will not do.
The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona proposed an
amendment to the bill that would block second reading. Bill S-23 amends the
Customs Act and other acts to allow for preapproval of people and goods for low
risk Canada-U.S. travellers. The bill speeds up the flow of low risk traffic
across the border. It focuses the limited resources of the CCRA on traffic of
higher or unknown risk. How would the government make that
distinction?
Another problem with the bill is that it focuses on
risk management. In the case of CSIS, risk management was just a code word for
making do with less, of policing on a shoestring budget, and thus risking the
lives of Canadians in the process. Let us call it what it is.
There are more problems however. I express serious
doubts about the intent of the bill. It highlights the don't worry, be happy
approach of the government. Furthermore, if the government refuses to support
the amendment, it would be a blatant reminder of the arrogance of the
government.
(1725)
We face a unique problem in Canada. If we fail our
brother and pass a bill flawed in its intent, we risk the economic benefits the
bill is supposed to protect. Bill S-23 as it stands now would result in a
backlash against Canada. Our exports could be affected with negative
repercussions that could jeopardize the goodwill between our two
nations.
Ambassador Cellucci of the United States has said that
Canada and the U.S. need to harmonize their immigration policies. Legislation
coming out of the House needs to reflect that intent. The U.S., in answer to
our reluctance to deal with the security issue, may apply the dreaded section
110 of its immigration laws, resulting in long lineups at the border and
further problems for Canadians, low risk or otherwise, trying to enter the U.S.
Section 110 would create chaos at the border if implemented.
The security issue will be dealt with, if not on our
terms then on American terms. Either we deal with it here or the U.S. congress
will do it for us, and we should not blame it for that.
Free trade was supposed to bring the best of both
worlds by being free and fair. It was supposed to bring access to more goods
and services as well as increased economic integration with our friends to the
south, but it will be threatened if we fail to balance it against the safety of
Canadians and Americans.
Economic benefits are vital but we must not lose sight
of our long term relations and security interests. We have an opportunity
before us today to turn the clock back in some small way to ensure that the
laws we implement deal with today's realities which have changed our world
dramatically. Any failure to do so would bring us blame for generations to
come.
The chief target for terrorist acts lives next door to
us. Canada could be a target one day. The Americans are our major trading
partners and the source of most foreign direct investment in Canada as well as
the biggest destination of investment by Canadians.
The weak and arrogant Liberal government that lacks
vision is clueless. This means that Canadians would pay a terrible price of job
losses, border delays, plant closures and forgone economic activity until
Ottawa cleans up its act. Now is the time to do that job.
(1730)
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-23 on
behalf of my constituents of Saanich--Gulf Islands. The bill is a very
important one considering the events of September 11. When the bill was first
introduced it was brought in so we could streamline legitimate people
travelling across our border between Canada and the United States and allow
pre-approval mechanisms for the transfer of goods between Canada and the United
States.
Today $500 billion of trade travels across our border
each year. It is important for the economies of both countries that this
continues to happen in a very timely manner. There is merit to the bill.
However, as we have witnessed in the last few weeks, it is also important to
ensure that the perimeter of our two countries is absolutely secure.
The bill is designed to help streamline this process so
that energies can be funnelled on the people of concern. We have an opportunity
to strengthen the bill. It should go back for more amendments so that the
technologies available to us today can have a much greater control of what is
actually moving across our border, both in people and commodities. This would
allow for the movement of legitimate travellers but with a much higher security
level.
We should be looking at strengthening our security
approaches. Immigration policies in this country must be generous but they must
be very stringent as well. When we screen people who are coming into our
country we should ensure the safety of all Canadians and all landed immigrants
who come before them.
There is a serious problem not just in our country but
in many of our allied countries such as Great Britain, France and the United
States. They are not immune and neither are we. We have faced horrific events
in the last few weeks. I am sure every member in the House recognizes that
there are terrorists in Canada as well as our allied countries who want to
commit these horrific acts.
It is time to look at a bill like this one that wants
to streamline the process and make it very rigorous so that the screening
process applies to all people going across the border.
That does not mean we have to slow it down. With
technologies and preapproved processors there are all kinds of opportunities.
However we want to make sure that we know who is going across our border in
both directions, that we can instantly track suspected people, people with
criminal records and a history of concern, people who have tried to come into
our country with any type of false passport or any type of irregularity. All
that information would flash up immediately.
The same thing would apply to people who move
commodities across our borders. If there were any irregularities or dealings
that were of concern they would be flashed immediately. The men and women of
the CCRA who are manning our borders should be given the proper tools to do
their job.
I would argue that the standards are not there and it
is time to change that now. I am not criticizing our own country but our allied
countries as well who are facing this very serious problem. On September 11
these people took control of four planes and there were others that tried to do
so as well. It is very clear that we should be investing in a North American
perimeter and that we make provisions against something this well organized
that can slip through the system so easily.
(1735)
We have a bill which was brought before the Senate long
before September 11. Its intent was to streamline and make things go smoother,
to arguably pre-approve people and use the technologies available. However, we
have an opportunity now to send it back and say that we have a serious problem
in this country. We should be sitting down with our American friends discussing
how we combat this problem on a North American-wide system and how we bring in
systems where all the data is exchanged.
I would argue that needs to be a priority. It is my
understanding that the government has not done this. I have some concerns with
that. We should be looking at that right now and bringing these screening
measures into place.
From a purely economic standpoint, there is the whole
question of security, which is paramount to the safety of our families, our
homes, our ridings and the safety of Canadians. That is absolutely reason
enough.
It is also important, when we have trade of $500
billion a year between Canada and the United States or half a trillion dollars,
that we have systems in place to allow trade to move through. Obviously the
economies depend on some of these shipments. We cannot have a bottleneck system
at our borders. There have to be systems in place to move these goods freely
but in a very safe manner ensuring that the information is there and there is
pre-approval.
We have an opportunity to revisit this and bring in
systems that will absolutely ensure our families at home in our ridings can
feel very safe. We need to become very aggressive about this, so do our allies.
It is hoped that we can work together.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question
is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): In my
opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having
risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): A recorded
division on the amendment stands deferred.
* * *
[English]
International Boundary Waters Treaty
Act
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew
(for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved that Bill C-6, an
act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be read
the third time and passed.
Mr. Stephen Owen (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on
third reading of Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters
Treaty Act. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade for the careful consideration given to Bill C-6.
Over the past four decades every Canadian government,
whatever its political stripe, has declared opposition to bulk water removal
projects. This has responded to concerns expressed by Canadians that all levels
of government should take action to assure the long term security and integrity
of Canada's freshwater resources. However, there has never been any legislation
to back up that policy. Today we have an opportunity to correct that
situation.
I would like to describe briefly the main features of
Bill C-6 and then address a few broad questions which have been raised during
committee stage of the bill. The amendments have three elements: a prohibition
provision; a licensing regime; and sanctions and penalties.
The prohibition provision imposes a prohibition on the
bulk removal of boundary waters out of their water basins. While the scope is
narrow because Canada's jurisdiction in this field is also narrow, the impact
is significant. The prohibition covers the Great Lakes, the largest system of
fresh surface water in the world. Many of the bulk water removal projects over
the past few decades, up to and including the Nova project of May 1998, have
included Great Lakes water.
During committee hearings, one witness urged members to
reject completely Bill C-6 because it would prohibit a project still on the
drawing board for redirecting freshwater in Northern Ontario to Lake Superior
and from there to other parts of Canada and the United States. Stopping this
type of project in boundary waters is exactly the objective of Bill
C-6.
By adopting this bill, the House will send a clear and
unequivocal signal to anyone thinking of developing these schemes; it is
prohibited under federal law. It will also send a strong and welcome signal to
Canadians that our water is not for sale.
A licensing regime will cover projects in Canada, such
as dams or other obstructions, in boundary and transboundary waters. Under
existing provisions of the treaty, these types of projects must have the
approval of the Government of Canada and the international joint commission,
the IJC.
Over the past 92 years there have been about 60 such
projects approved without any problems. In essence, this process is not
changing except that for the Government of Canada's approval it will be
formalized in a licence. I would also like to stress that the licensing regime
is entirely separate from the prohibition.
The question has been raised whether the licensing
regime permits the approval of bulk water removal projects outside of water
basins, in effect going around the prohibition. The answer is no.
The language of Bill C-6 is absolutely clear on this
matter. Any proposal for diversion of boundary waters outside of the basin
would be captured by the prohibition provision, not covered by the licensing
regime. The prohibition in Bill C-6 excludes bulk removals out of water basins
from the licensing regime expressly and imposes a prohibition on such projects
binding on the government.
Finally, Bill C-6 provides for clear and strong
sanctions and penalties. This will give teeth to the prohibition and ensure
Canada is in a position to enforce it.
I would like to address three broad issues that have
been raised regarding Bill C-6 and Canada's strategy on bulk water
removal.
First, is the scope of Bill C-6. Second, is why not an
export ban on water? Third, is working with the U.S. to protect the Great
Lakes.
With regard to the scope of Bill C-6, we have never
claimed that it is the single answer to cover all of Canada's waters. At the
outset, we recognized that to completely protect our freshwater resources from
bulk removals, all levels of government had to act within their jurisdictions.
This recognizes the important role that provinces must play as the owners of
natural resources.
In 1999 the Minister of the Environment proposed action
by all levels of government in Canada to prohibit bulk water removal out of
major Canadian water basins. We have made significant progress. In May 1998
only two of fourteen federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions in
Canada had legislation to prohibit bulk water removal. Today all fourteen have
put into place or are developing legislation and policies to prohibit bulk
water removal.
I believe that the action of the provinces,
complemented by our action today, will set up a strong legislative framework to
protect Canada's freshwater resources. That is the goal we must all work
toward.
(1740)
Some people have advocated federal unilateral action
through an export ban on water. Such an approach is wrong. It is unrealistic,
especially in the federal-provincial context. It would be ineffective. Worse,
it would actually undermine the goal we all share.
Unlike Canada's approach, which is focused on
comprehensive environmental objectives in a manner that is trade consistent, an
export ban does not address the environmental dimension. It also has possible
constitutional limitations, and may be vulnerable to trade challenge. An export
ban would only regulate the cross-border movement of water once it has become a
good and would therefore be subject to international trade agreements. It would
likely be contrary to Canada's international trade obligations.
Under Canada's environmental approach, water is
protected and regulated in its natural state, before the issue of exporting
arises and before it becomes a commercial good or a saleable commodity. This
approach is consistent with Canada's international trade
obligations.
Canadian governments have full sovereignty over the
management of water in its natural state, and in exercising this sovereignty
are not constrained by trade agreements, including the NAFTA.
Finally, it is self-evident that we must work closely
with U.S. jurisdictions, both federal and state, to ensure that the regimes on
both sides of the border are as consistent and restrictive as
possible.
Canada and the U.S. agreed on a reference to the
International Joint Commission to investigate and make recommendations on
consumptive uses, diversions and removals in the Great Lakes. The IJC in its
February 2000 final report made recommendations which provide the basis for
developing a consistent approach to protecting the Great Lakes on both sides of
the border.
The eight Great Lake states are opposed to large scale
removals out of the water basin. Also, each governor of the Great Lakes states
has a congressionally affirmed power to veto any new diversions.
Also, in the years ahead the boundary waters treaty
will remain a critical instrument in protecting Canada's rights, as it has for
more than 90 years.
By adopting Bill C-6, parliament will set down in law
an unambiguous prohibition on bulk water removal in waters under federal
jurisdiction, especially in the Great Lakes. This is a forward looking action
which places the highest priority on ensuring the security of Canada's
freshwater resources. It demonstrates leadership at the federal level. It
affirms an approach which is comprehensive, environmentally sound, respectful
of constitutional responsibilities and consistent with Canada's international
trade obligations.
I urge all members to support Bill C-6.
(1745)
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian
Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join in
this debate today on a subject very dear to myself and certainly to most
Canadians because of recent events that have affected a great number of
Canadians, that is, the matter of water and the protection of our water
resources.
Certainly the bill is supportable and our party intends
to support it, but it is really unfortunate that this is the best we could do.
The bill comes forward to amend a law in Canada that has been on the books
since 1909, I believe. It really does not address the real issues surrounding
water that Canadians are so concerned about.
The bill comes forward as a result, I think, of a
dismal failure on the part of the Mulroney government of some years ago to
protect the sovereignty of Canadian water in the Canada-U.S. free trade
agreement. I remember that there was a lot of discussion at the time and a lot
of concerns were expressed by Canadians. In fact, a part of the negotiations
that was so important to Canada was the protection of water. There was a lot of
rhetoric flying back and forth as to whether or not water in fact was included
in the free trade agreement. It has certainly since been concluded that it is
not exempted from the free trade agreement and that in fact Canada has a real
problem with the protection of its sovereignty over water resources.
We all remember very clearly, during the federal
election campaign of 1993, the current Prime Minister's pledge to open up the
free trade agreement with the U.S. to include water in one of the articles as
being exempted from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Of course that did
not happen and I think most clear thinking Canadians knew it would not happen,
that it was not possible to make it happen without opening up the agreement and
addressing a number of issues that the U.S. government was willing to look at
and wanted included. I think probably one of those issues that is very dear to
Ontario and Quebec is the issue of supply managed industries that receive
protection under the free trade agreement. As a result we really did not get
any of the protection we were looking for.
Since 1993, of course, there has been a lot of
attention paid to water and its protection, not only protection from export and
interbasin transfer but certainly protection from pollution, as well as the
safety of water for human consumption. More than ever Canadians and people all
around the world now are beginning to recognize the value of their water
resources. Water is a primary ingredient for life on this planet and while
years ago we did not give a lot of thought to it in Canada because we had such
an abundance of it and it was so pristine, we never gave a lot of thought to
the need for protection of our water supply. The events in Walkerton that
resulted in a number of people losing their lives and many more people being
very ill because of a pollutant in a water supply, and then again events this
last summer in North Battleford, have brought home in a real way how precious
our water resources are and how we Canadians must move to protect them in any
way possible.
(1750)
As a youngster growing up in rural northern Alberta and
northern Ontario, I found that it was not uncommon when we were camping or
engaging in business in remote and wild parts of the country to simply access
without any treatment whatsoever the water supply available to us for drinking,
cooking and bathing. For thousands of years Canada's aboriginal people accessed
the water supply in Canada on just such a basis, never giving much thought to
whether that water was safe to drink or safe to cook with. That certainly is no
longer the case.
It does not matter whether we are in the densely
populated regions of Ontario or in the wilds of the Canadian Arctic, it can no
longer be taken for granted that we can kneel down and drink the water that is
before us. That water could make us sick or perhaps even kill us.
It has come to the forefront of everyone's thinking
that we need to do something to protect our water. The bill, minimal as it is,
certainly is at least an attempt to do something to protect at least waters
under federal jurisdiction, the boundary waters over which we have shared
jurisdiction with the U.S. government. It is a small step in the right
direction but we need much more. We need to go much further. In essence we need
to protect the sovereignty of Canada's water. I do not mean simply banning
these grandiose schemes to export Canada's water to other countries or other
basins.
In Canada we have a huge supply of fresh water. I
believe we have something like 9% of the world supply of fresh water. We should
have every right to use that water and those water resources for the benefit of
Canadians. I firmly believe that those water resources will become even more
valuable than the natural energy resources that Canada is currently and has for
a long time been developing. This freshwater resource has the potential to be
one of the most valuable resources in the world. I think we must have the right
as a country to manage those resources, firstly for the benefit of Canadians.
Under the free trade agreement with the United States, if we try to use those
water resources for the benefit of Canadians immediately we are open to legal
action for not allowing equal access to those water resources to
Americans.
Because of the failure of the past two governments to
address this issue, we already have hugely costly legal action filed against
Canada under the free trade agreement resulting from a scheme to move glacier
water from British Columbia to the United States. Those schemes will continue
to come forward. The bill only addresses any such schemes that would take place
within the boundary waters of shared jurisdiction, but there is a lot more
water out there than those boundary waters and it does need that
protection.
This summer I travelled through southern Alberta,
southern Saskatchewan and across the northwest regions of the United States,
all of which are suffering from a severe drought that has been happening in
those regions over the past year or two. It becomes more and more evident how
valuable that water resource is. Those parts of southern Alberta and
Saskatchewan and the northwestern United States simply are turning into
deserts. Very little is growing. These huge areas that once were such valuable
food producing regions are severely restricted because of the lack of water to
grow crops.
(1755)
Certainly if one travels through those areas that have
access to irrigation supplies and can actually put water on the land the
difference is absolutely amazing. It is like an oasis in the middle of the
desert. Those areas are producing huge crops with great economic benefits for
the regions and the people involved.
I suspect this will continue to be the case or will
even get worse, to the point where the United States will look northward with
an eye to accessing our freshwater supplies to help produce the food the people
of their country need. Before that happens I believe that we as a country and a
government have a responsibility to be prepared and have in place regulations
and laws that will in fact allow Canadians, first and foremost, to benefit from
those water resources. Only afterward, if we as a country so decide, should we
benefit from the wealth that we might obtain by sharing that resource with
areas that need it to produce food.
That may not happen in my lifetime or for a long time,
but at some point, if water continues to become scarcer in northern California
and throughout the northwest and midwest U.S., it is inevitable that people
will realize the potential to be gained from the use of our water resources,
huge amounts of which flow every year into the Arctic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean,
Hudson's Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. At some point, I believe, we will look at
what benefit could be gained from the development of that flow of water and
from directing that water resource to areas of the world that desperately need
fresh water to feed their populations. Again, I certainly think we have to be
prepared to do that.
Unfortunately, as I said, the bill amends a treaty
signed between Canada and the United States back in 1909 and is simply a feeble
attempt to address the concerns of Canadians about water and the NAFTA
agreement and how it affects us. As long as we in Canada can prevent water from
being traded, either interprovincially or internationally, then the concern
over how it is treated under NAFTA is not an issue. However, the minute we
allow water to become a commodity it becomes part of the NAFTA agreement and we
then have no right under that agreement to restrict the use or the development
of that water to Canadians only. We will have to open it up, certainly to the
U.S. as well, but the provisions in the bill for licensing and the penalties
that would be imposed for breaches of this particular law should be adequate
and should do the job.
I have been in the House for some nine years now.
Again, like almost every bill that has come through the House, the bill vests
more authority in the governor in council, the Prime Minister and his cabinet
to govern and to change laws through regulation rather than bring the issues
back to the House to let Canada's parliament debate them and vote on the
amendments. That is the wrong way to go. I believe that for the sake of
spreading knowledge and gaining the support of Canadians these issues should be
dealt with by parliament. That is what our job is and that is what we should be
doing.
(1800)
I am disappointed this is the best the government could
do to address the concerns of Canadians about our water supply. It should have
been done a long time ago. The government should be pressing much harder
through the international trade minister, the foreign affairs minister and the
natural resources minister to address issues not addressed in the bill such as
water other than boundary water. However we in the Canadian Alliance will
support the bill when it comes time for the vote. I move:
|
That
the motion be amended by deleting all words after the word “That” and
substituting the following therefor: |
|
Bill
C-6, an Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, be not now
read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months
hence. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
Debate is on the amendment.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke,
BQ):
Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak to
Bill C-6, an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty
Act.
I will not be telling those listening anything new if I
say that water, like air, is a vital and essential element which we should in
no way compromise. Water is such an essential element that having too little is
as bad as having too much. When there is none, things dry up, and when there is
too much, things drown. A balance must therefore be maintained, both in
quantity and in quality.
I would like to back up a bit and talk about when I was
a municipal councillor in Sherbrooke for 12 years. During that time, I had the
pleasure of chairing the CHARMES management corporation. This was a corporation
that looked after the Saint-François and Magog rivers in Sherbrooke. I was
therefore quite quickly introduced to the concept of a water basin involving a
good many people. Everything that comes from upstream and everything we send
downstream has repercussions everywhere. I quickly understood that we were
responsible for the quality of the water that flowed past us downstream, just
as we had rights with respect to the water that flowed to us from upstream.
I remember when I was about ten years old swimming in
the Saint-François river under the supervision of the recreation committee and
the water was of impeccable quality. When I began working with the CHARMES
management corporation, we could not really swim in the Magog river. It was
necessary to take specific action to improve the quality of that river's
water.
For 12 years, therefore, the importance of water in
terms of both quantity and quality was brought home to me. In Sherbrooke, I was
also responsible for water and water treatment services. To all intents and
purposes, the municipality of Sherbrooke supplied water to approximately
130,000 people—even though the city had only 78,000 inhabitants. The amount of
water we drew from a reservoir, Lake Memphrémagog, 27 kilometres from
Sherbrooke, was considerable: approximately 60,000 cubic metres daily, or 21.9
million cubic metres a year.
We know that this water is used by industry, by
institutions and by municipalities, either for domestic or for sanitary
services. When it comes to the importance of water, what is surprising is that
life—we all know that the human body is almost 92% water—
An hon. member: Except if one weighs 300
pounds.
Mr. Serge Cardin: No, it is not important, it is
relative. If one weighs 300 pounds, it is 92%; if one weighs 100 pounds, this
should be about the same, unless the person is drying up.
In terms of the water that we use directly, that we
drink, this would represent, according to analyses, less than 1% of the water
required for domestic and hygienic uses. We see then that the water we use,
whether in the industrial or the institutional sector, and for all the other
domestic uses, including washing clothes and dishes, cooking, using the toilet,
showering, bathing, there is less than 1% left for drinking. There are also
exterior uses, that is, for watering the grass and the garden, washing the car
and cleaning the yard. It is often in domestic uses that people are being asked
to be careful about the amount of water they use.
(1810)
So, it is always people who are being asked to make
some efforts, but it is rarely industries, institutions, and probably even less
people who would think about selling water. We know this could be quite a
lucrative business.
For example, concerning water treatment, we get water
for free. Of course, infrastructures have been built; 27 kilometres of pipes
represent major infrastructures. There is no value to add at this stage, but
there is a treatment cost of about 30 cents per cubic meter. So I figure that
some people would be tempted to sell bulk water.
Still in my introduction, I would also just like to
inform members of the House about a small example of an environmental disaster,
of a troubling situation in the Aral Sea, and I quote:
|
The
problem of the vanishing Aral Sea has become a serious ecological problem, a
national catastrophe even. The origin of the problem dates back a very long
time, but it has taken on a new dimension in recent decades. |
|
The
construction of irrigation systems throughout central Asia, and particularly
the development of water supplies for major residential and industrial sites,
has causes a terrible ecological catastrophe: the death of the Aral
Sea. |
|
Not
long ago, governments were still boasting about the new irrigated lands
recovered from the desert and the steppes, forgetting that the water used had
come from the Aral Sea and its two sources. Today, the entire area around the
Aral Sea has been affected by this ecological disaster. Between 1911 and 1962,
the depth of the Aral Sea was 53.4 metres. The water volume was 1,064 cubic
kilometres and the sea's surface 66,000 square kilometres. At that time, the
sea played a central role for transportation, industry and fishing, and also
regulated the climate. |
Around 1994, the water depth dropped to the 32.5 metre
level, from 53.4 to 32.5. Its volume was less than 400 cubic kilometres—as
opposed to 1,064 it had dropped to 400—while the surface had been reduced to
32,500 square kilometres—a drop from 66,000 to 32,500.
This is a true ecological disaster. Judging by the
great thirst some in North America have for the water of Quebec, the water of
Canada, the water of the Great Lakes, there is a potential risk of ecological
disaster here as well.
As we know—despite the rain outside at the present
time—we tend to think of the water levels in lakes and rivers staying the same.
This is absolutely wrong. The levels of the seas are rising, constantly, while
the levels of lakes and rivers is dropping, and rapidly at that. This is not
even taking into account all the analyses that could be done on water tables
and the impacts of industry and agriculture, and particularly of high
population densities in a given area, requiring heavy demands for water to be
met.
There is runoff water. When a drop takes I do not know
how long to reach a river after falling on earth, it is purified, contributes
to the water table and goes down the river. It could take a fairly long time.
Now, a drop falls on the sidewalk, on the ashphalt and reaches the river in a
few minutes or hours.
This is a sort of introduction, to describe my
involvement in matters involving water.
Let us move on now to setting the context of this whole
issue of water and the treaties on boundary waters.
(1815)
As I said earlier, water is a limited resource, despite
what we might think. For example, the report prepared by the International
Joint Commission in 1999 provided that:
Although the total volume in the
lakes is vast, on average less than 1 percent of the waters of the Great Lakes
is renewed annually by precipitation, surface water runoff, and inflow from
groundwater sources. Under the circumstances, we must recognize that, while the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system represents one fifth of the earth's
fresh water, this resource is not unlimited. |
Furthermore, in recent years,
discoveries and research on the greenhouse effect and the potential risks of
increased temperatures have made underscored the great fragility of the
resource and the pressure it is under. |
Because of climactic risks, increased desertification
worldwide, limited supplies of drinking water around the world and energy
development based on this resource, the idea of exporting large quantities of
water on tanker ships or of diverting rivers has emerged as a serious option in
the past ten years or so in Quebec and Canada.
So, to environmental threats to water supplies is added
a new and significant threat of bulk water exports and large scale diversion of
our lakes and rivers.
There is no doubt that bulk water exports offer
significant economic possibilities. It is because of this potential that some
provinces have examined the possibility of issuing to companies permits
allowing them to consider bulk water exports.
In the early eighties, following a drought in
California, British Columbia delivered such permits to five Canadian and one
American companies. However, over the years, the province changed its position
and, concerned about the possible impact of such trade on B.C.'s natural
resources, it decided to prohibit bulk water exports through provincial
legislation.
We know that the possibility of issuing similar permits
was examined by other provinces. The case of Newfoundland recently made
headlines. The province quickly gave up the idea, but the possibility remains.
This, combined with the recent lawsuit by the California-based company Sun Belt
Water against the government of British Columbia, raises concerns and brings
back the issue of trade risks associated with exporting this
resource.
In this context, the federal government has been
promising to legislate for the past year. But what about the federal strategy
so far?
The federal government announced in early 2000 that it
intended to act more directly in the matter of water export and introduced a
three pronged strategy. That strategy follows from a motion on water protection
passed by the House of Commons on February 9, 1999.
There are three parts to the strategy: first, changes
to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in order to give the federal
government regulatory power over the bulk removal of boundary waters; second, a
joint reference, with the United States and the IJC, to investigate the effects
of consumption, diversion and removal of water, including for export purposes,
in boundary waters; and third, a proposal to develop, in co-operation with the
provinces and territories, a Canada-wide accord on bulk water removal so as to
protect Canadian water basins.
(1820)
On February 10, 1999, Canada and the United States
appointed the IJC. After noting a growing number of proposals to export water
from the Great Lakes and other areas of the United States and Canada, the two
countries agreed to ask the commission to study the issue and make
recommendations within the next year. A preliminary report was tabled on August
18, 1999 and the final report of the IJC was tabled on February 22,
2000.
In its preliminary report, the International Joint
Commission recommended that during the next six months it would need to
complete its study, the federal, provincial and state governments prohibit bulk
removal or sale of water. It emphasized a number of points worth mentioning
here.
First, it indicates that there is no surplus in the
Great Lakes system and that bulk removal of water could reduce the system's
resiliency, or resistance to stress.
Second, information on removal of underground water is
definitely inadequate. There is a problem here, because underground water can
have a major impact on the integrity and quality of ecosystems.
The report also points out that it is impossible to
forecast the demand for water. Moreover, the possibility of climate change and,
more recently, all sorts of natural factors make it impossible to evaluate with
any degree of certainty the level and rate of flow of the Great Lakes over the
next few years.
In its final report entitled “Protection of Waters of
the Great Lakes” of February 2000, the IJC concluded that the Great Lakes
needed to be protected, especially in view of cumulative uncertainties,
pressures and repercussions of removals, of consumption and of demographic and
economic growth, as well as of climate change.
The report includes the following conclusions: first,
the water of the Great Lakes is a critical resource. On an average annual
basis, less than 1% of the water in the Great Lakes system is
renewed.
Second, if all interests in the basin are considered,
there is never a surplus of water in the Great Lakes system; every drop of
water has several potential uses.
Third, International trade law obligations, including
the provisions of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, WTO
agreements, and the GATT, do not prevent Canada and the United States from
taking measures to protect their water resources and preserve the integrity of
the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, to the extent that decision makers do not
discriminate against individuals from other countries in implementing these
measures. Canada and the United States cannot be forced by trade laws to
jeopardize the waters of the Great Lakes' ecosystem.
Let us have a look at Bill C-6 and examine the context
briefly. This bill is the direct result of the strategy the federal government
made public in February 1999. It concerns its will to regulate the removal of
water in boundary waters.
The federal government says that the intent of this
bill is to facilitate the implementation of the boundary waters treaty, a
treaty that also deals with other issues arising along the border between
Canada and the United States. Thus, the amendments prohibit water removal and
the transfer of boundary waters out of their watershed.
Also, under the proposed amendments, activities
affecting the flow and the natural level of water on the American side of the
border would depend on the delivery of a license by the foreign affairs
department.
(1825)
So the federal government suggests adding sections 10
through 26 to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
Sections 11 and 12 deal with the licences required when
boundary waters are used, obstructed or diverted in a manner that affects the
natural level or flow of the waters. These two sections specify that such
licences do not apply in respect of the ordinary use of waters for domestic or
sanitary purposes. The licensing allocation plan would not apply either to the
traditional uses, like the removal for agricultural or industrial uses within
the basin.
In the same way, no person could, except in accordance
with a licence issued under section 16, construct or maintain any remedial or
protective work or any dam or other obstruction in waters flowing from boundary
waters, or in downstream waters of rivers flowing across the international
boundary, the effect of which is or is likely to raise in any way the natural
level of waters on the other side of the international boundary. This provision
would not apply in respect of the exceptions specified in the
regulations.
Section 13 prohibits any bulk removal of boundary
waters from the water basins. The general provisions of this bill specify that
sections 11 to 13 do not apply to projects undertaken before the coming into
force of these sections, unless the effects are still perceived after their
coming into force.
Clauses 16 through 20 set out the minister's powers and
provide an overview of his ability to issue and revoke permits and to charge
penalties.
Clause 20 states that the minister may, with the
approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement or arrangement
with the government of one or more provinces respecting the activities referred
to in sections 11 to 13, although not specifying what such an agreement would
be.
Clause 21 addresses the regulations under the act which
would guide the minister's decisions. Among other things, it states that the
minister could, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations
defining water basins, specifying exceptions, and unlike the old bill C-15, the
government can identify exceptions from clause 13(1), which is the heart of the
bill, prescribe classes of licences and determine persons eligible to hold such
licences, and the form such applications and licences must take.
What are the issues involved in Bill C-6?
Although the entire population acknowledges that water
resources need to be protected, it is far from obvious that Bill C-6 will
actually protect them any better. In fact, one would be justified to wonder
whether the Liberal government is not taking advantage of the panic situation
about protecting our waters to grab powers that are outside its
jurisdiction.
There are three major problems that must be raised in
connection with the bill we are looking at today. The first relates to the
definition of water basin. The second concerns the number of powers assigned to
the federal minister in connection with exceptions and with licensing
activities. The third relates to the pointlessness of the bill we are looking
at.
Because of these three, Bill C-6 goes beyond federal
areas of jurisdiction and encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, including
those of Quebec, of course.
How much time do I have remaining, Madam
Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The hon. member still has a few seconds left, but when
debate resumes next time, he will have 17 minutes.
Mr. Serge Cardin:
I will conclude for now, Madam Speaker. When the House
sits next time, we will look again at the three elements I have just defined,
namely, the catchment basin, the many powers granted the federal minister to
determine exceptions and activities requiring permits and the usefulness of the
bill under study.
In revealing these three well defined points, it will
no doubt be clear that the Bloc Quebecois does not support Bill C-6. Water, as
I said earlier, is vital.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Debate]
* * *
(1830)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester,
PC/DR):
Madam Speaker, we had earlier consultations and we will
not follow through on the issue during adjournment proceedings tonight. I
informed the clerk's desk earlier.
* * *
Infrastructure
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton,
Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am rising today in the House to ask
the Minister of Transport about the serious state of highway 7 which extends
southwest from Ottawa and cuts through my riding of Lanark--Carleton.
Highway 7 is the most direct route between Ottawa and
Toronto. As such it is an important commuting, trucking and bus route. It has
the potential to be used more than it currently is although the highway is
quite overloaded.
The Ottawa area has experienced an economic boom in
recent years. Businesses and commuters have started to spread beyond Kanata and
into the towns of Carleton Place and Perth. This movement of people and capital
has served to increase traffic and trucking volume on highway 7 which is
becoming an increasingly important artery.
The mayor of Carleton Place, Brian Costello, has been
very vocal in calling for a widening of the roadway into a four lane divided
highway. MPP Norm Sterling, who is my counterpart at Queen's Park, has
signalled that the highway is a top priority for the provincial government.
On behalf of all the residents in my riding I thank
both those gentlemen for their hard work. However the people of
Lanark--Carleton need to see results. There have yet to be any funds allocated
or a completion date set.
I last stood in the House and spoke to the issue on two
occasions in April and May of this year. I asked for a serious federal
commitment to infrastructure spending so that long overdue projects like the
widening of highway 7 could go forth.
When I addressed the issue in April I spoke of safety
as a primary concern. I said at the time that highway 7 had seen 11 fatal
accidents in Lanark--Carleton in the past few years. Since I made those remarks
the same stretch of highway has seen three additional deaths over the summer as
well as a series of serious injuries related to traffic accidents. This is not
just a question of commuting and commerce. It is a question of life and
death.
The province of Ontario has earmarked $70 million for
infrastructure improvements in the Ottawa area. What has the federal government
done?
The U.S. federal government collects $25 billion in gas
tax revenues and spends $21 billion of it on roads and highways. Eighty-four
per cent of the revenue is dedicated to road and highway improvement. What
about Canada?
Canadian federal gasoline taxes have increased by more
than 500% between 1985 and the present, from 1.5 cents per litre to 10 cents
per litre. The tax was originally intended to be a direct source of revenue for
highway improvements.
Over $4.7 billion was collected in federal taxes last
year. Yet only 4% of the funds were returned to the provinces by way of
provincial transfers for road and highway development. The dollar figure was in
the area of a mere $190 million. As though that were not bad enough, 96% of
this pittance was spent east of the Ontario-Quebec border. That means that
Ontario, by far the largest source of highway improvement taxes, is getting
virtually nothing for its highway needs.
Federal transfers for highways continue to drop in
dollar value while gas tax revenues, ostensibly highway improvement revenues,
go up by hundreds of millions of dollars.
I fully realize that the federal government has many
competing demands on the treasury. However this is an issue of fundamental
importance to economic expansion, prosperity and human safety.
Could the Minister of Transport tell us what is
happening to the $4.7 billion in highway improvement taxes? How many more
people must die before the federal government uses the money for the purpose
for which it is being raised: to expand and improve the safety of our
highways?
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to the member,
who is interested in improving the highway system.
First of all, I wish to point out to him that, when it
comes time to decide which projects to fund, the responsibility of provincial
governments is definitely a key element in defining priorities.
There is no question that highway 7 is a major highway
in the Province of Ontario, but it is unfortunately not part of the national
highway system. National highways are defined as those which promote
interprovincial economic development. This responsibility therefore falls to
provincial governments.
In any future funding, Transport Canada will obviously
give priority to highways which are part of the national highway
system.
The Province of Ontario has itself decided that
highways 416 and 401 would form the segment of the national highway system
between Ottawa and Toronto. The program to improve the national highway system,
which was announced a few months ago, will obviously encourage development of
the regional highway system, including Highway 7, with respect to tourism and
economic development.
By announcing its $600 million Strategic Highway
Infrastructure Program, Transport Canada will certainly be able to help improve
the main national highway system.
Ontario will receive $160 million. It must be
understood that it is not Transport Canada's responsibility to define the
provinces' priorities. Transport Canada will have to accept the priorities
already identified by the provincial governments. I think that everyone will
agree that these priorities must be respected by the federal government.
Official negotiations will soon begin and I hope that
we will have an opportunity to help improve the national highway system which,
in turn, will have an impact on regional highways.
(1835)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Bakopanos):
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)