House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was border.

Topics

Questions No. 61Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is that agreed?

Questions No. 61Routine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, be now read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before being interrupted for oral question period, we had certain reservations about the bill. These were threefold.

First of all, regulations are needed for certain matters that strike us as crucial, including the criteria for accreditation of Canadian or American individuals or companies, so that when CANPASS accreditation is refused, the reasons for that refusal are known and corrective action is taken in order to maintain healthy competition between Canadian and American companies in the same sector.

Second, we also have certain reservations about the minister's discretionary power in certain cases. It is a failing of the government that it always includes several provisions in a bill referring to the minister's discretion. At some point everything is up to the minister's discretion and this concerns us.

As for giving customs officers increased authority to open mail in the case of envelopes weighing 30 grams or more, we question the appropriateness of such a measure. Customs officers already have certain powers, but it would be excessive to open mail without an arrest warrant or serious doubts about the nature of a parcel. Even the Canadian Bar Association questions these stepped up measures.

Following discussions with the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for the economic development agency, it wanted us to have some assurances regarding the possibility of having regulations with the bill, especially when it is examined in committee or at least of our having a statement of principle or a political statement for certain parts of the bill. It will be especially important to have a larger picture than that of the bill in which we find incredible gaps that prevent our understanding things properly.

We got this assurance and I think we will watch how things develop because the Minister of National Revenue and minister responsible for economic development is not in the habit of saying just anything. We will therefore await further developments in the hope that the minister will provide the clarification we seek.

In principle, at this second reading stage my party is going to support this bill, but we will be waiting for developments from the minister responsible who, let us hope, will meet our expectations. If at the end of the process we are not satisfied with respect to the concerns we have mentioned throughout this speech, we would have to oppose the bill unless there are amendments.

So far, we are in support of the bill's principles at second reading because international trade could benefit. The administrative problems encountered by certain companies and individuals in conducting business with the United States in particular, could be reduced. This could be a positive thing in the circumstances.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, the NDP caucus feels that Bill S-23 is less about providing for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada, or even about making technical or housekeeping changes to the current practices, and more about economic sovereignty. It is about the larger issue of the whole subject of North American integration and the ultimate disappearance of our borders.

The bill, like many others introduced by the Liberal government, is like a Trojan horse. The government introduces some fairly innocuous bills or aspects to an issue but with a secondary objective. The primary goal in this bill is masked around the issue of making sure that there is a free movement of goods and services between Canada and the United States, our major trading partner.

There are some positive changes in Bill S-23, particularly the lengthening of the period of time within which a person can appeal a ruling by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

That was a necessary change to make given, for example, the practice of people leaving the country to be married and then coming back with gifts or jewellery stemming from that marriage. Many people did not realize that there were huge customs duties on that material and there were only 30 days to appeal. There have been cases where the opportunity to appeal was lost. Changes in Bill S-23 will remedy this situation.

The larger issue pertains to our economic sovereignty and about the move toward the integration of the North American economy with the whole western hemispheric economy. Recent comments made by the ambassador to Canada from the United States have given us even greater cause for concern along these lines.

There have been those who advocate the idea of expediting the process by making comparisons with the European Union. It has made recent changes to the movement across borders between its partners to make the free flow of goods and services easier and less cumbersome.

The relationship among Canada, the United States and Mexico does not resemble the member states of the European Union. It has done a much greater job to harmonize other necessary things even before contemplating the harmonization of immigration policies, customs practices or shared practices such as electronic passes that are being contemplated with retina identification or palm prints.

These are fundamental shifts in the way that we do things. The Americans are saying we should harmonize with American immigration laws and then enter into this new relationship. It is far more than a technical change in the way people are processed as they cross the border. It does belie a fundamental shift in the way that we view ourselves.

There is a saying in the Holy Bible that the lion shall lie down with the lamb. In that case the lamb does not get very much sleep. We are very concerned that as we enter into this relationship with the United States it will be hugely to the benefit of the Americans and lesser to us.

In light of the recent World Trade Center tragedy Bill S-23 should be put on hold and frozen in its place until such time as we deal with the issue of international security stemming from the WTC tragedy.

It is the wrong time to be dealing with issues of economic sovereignty when we are so wholly dominated by the tragedy that happened in New York. It is the wrong time to redefine our relationship with the United States or to redefine our position as part of the North American hemisphere. Bill S-23 would force us to enter into that argument and debate long before we are ready.

We were reminded recently of the dangers of letting our economic sovereignty slip away. The recent trend in the past 20 years has been toward a branch plant economy. As we predicted, the development of a branch plant type economic base is coming to fruition.

For example, we said that if we lost control of our industries and let the Americans dominate or foreign ownership take over, Canadian industries would lose the ability to chart their own destiny. A graphic example is at our doorstep.

Frustrated Americans are saying that if Canada does not fall into a complete goose step with the United States in its current military exercises then they would reconsider allowing their plants to continue manufacturing in Canada. They would withdraw their Canadian branch plants of American companies costing Canada jobs.

That is a perfect illustration of what we warned about. If we lose our economic sovereignty we will lose our ability to have national sovereignty and to chart our destiny as we choose instead of becoming part of the American manifest destiny.

It is ultimately what western hemispheric integration is all about. The Americans are deemed to be the inevitable and chosen ideal that there should be one force in the western hemisphere and that it should be the American economy and culture.

We are opposed to that. I am a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist. When I look around the room for others with the same mindset I do not see very many on either side of the House at this time.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can the NDP speaker compare the goose stepping of Hitler to America's attack on terrorism?

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The Chair is not here to censor the words of the hon. member, but if the hon. member would like to continue his debate he may.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am not trying to offend anyone with the point that I am striving to make. Our primary concern as Canadians should be to maintain our economic and national sovereignty. As a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist I see very few other people speaking in those terms. We used to hear that kind of argument from the Liberal benches back in the days of Walter Gordon and Paul Martin Senior, and when the current member from Windsor used to espouse those lines.

We used to hear Liberal members talking about ensuring that too much foreign ownership does not dominate Canadian industries. That used to be a popular theme for them. Laws and regulations were put in place to make sure that did not happen. Part of their argument was that if our economic sovereignty was lost we would lose the ability to be a sovereign nation.

The most paramount idea about being a sovereign nation is to be able to chart our own destiny and control matters such as international military exercises like the one we are about to see the Americans embark on.

We have been essentially threatened. President Bush told us in his speech last night that countries are either shoulder to shoulder with America or they are with the terrorists. I find that offensive as a Canadian who is not unquestionably shoulder to shoulder with the Americans but that does not make me shoulder to shoulder with the terrorists.

We are advocating a third way to deal with the international tragedy that happened at the World Trade Center within the parameters of the international community, and that is to bring these criminals to justice without embarking on a unilateral military exercise such as that being contemplated by the U.S.

Canada must be cautious not to drift along with the particular exercise. Unless we have control of our economic sovereignty we are subject to the coercion associated with the threat of branch plants closing and the border being sealed up.

Those are the issues that concern us about Bill S-23. The legislation should not be up for consideration in the House of Commons at this sensitive time in our nation's history. The bill should be put back on ice. The flow of goods and services across our border should be dealt with at some less sensitive time.

We are hearing all the typical and familiar buzzwords in the news that give us cause for concern about what is the real agenda. The current ambassador of the United States to Canada is talking about the need for a NAFTA plus. Bill S-23 is the Liberal government's answer to a NAFTA plus.

I remind the House that sometimes the wishes of Americans are brought about in a circular way for procedural reasons. In 1983 the previous ambassador of the United States to Canada, Mr. Paul Robinson, in a Maclean's magazine article stated:

--Back in January of 1983, I asked my embassy staff to see what we could do to initiate a free trade deal with Canada. I realized, of course, that the public initiative had to come from Canada, because if it came from us it would look as if we were trying to gobble up our neighbour.

He had to get a Canadian entity to start calling for the trade agreement, knowing full well that it was hugely to their advantage. However the Americans wanted it to come from Canada. Otherwise Canadians would see, in a very transparent way, that it was really their intention to gobble up their neighbour.

The Toronto Star reports that then U.S. Ambassador Robinson took the idea to Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Business Council on National Issues and unofficial prime minister, at his Ottawa home. He was exactly who the Americans needed to promote the idea of the free trade agreement, an agreement that would be hugely in their favour.

Interestingly enough, when the president of BCNI talks about those days he reverses what history tells us and says it is important to remember that it was Canadians who took the first step and asked for the free trade agreement. It was in fact the U.S. ambassador visiting d'Aquino in his home who asked for it, and d'Aquino dutifully delivered over the next number of years.

We in the NDP believe the issue of North American integration is cause for great concern. It is a subject we should be debating. We are not afraid of having the debate but we do not think it should be in this context. It should not be wrapped in the envelope of the issue of customs and excise. That is crazy.

This is a Trojan horse idea. We are ostensibly here today to debate the idea of free movement of goods and services across the international border between Canada and the United States, but the debate is really about western hemispheric integration into one United States of America from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego.

It worries us when we hear the Liberal chair of the finance committee saying that no one can deny that North American integration is taking place. The newspaper article reports that he has emerged as the chief advocate for a no holds barred debate on integration, an issue which did not appear in Liberal election campaign literature in 2000.

I do not think the Liberal Party campaigned to trade away what little is left of our economic sovereignty. I do not think its intention upon re-election for a third term was to start passing legislation specifically asked for by the U.S. ambassador, that would see us lose our ability to chart our own destiny. I do not think the Liberals intended to embark on such an agenda. I did not notice it anywhere in their party's year 2000 election campaign literature.

We are not against having a more open border at some point. We are not against free movement of goods and services between us and our neighbour to the south. However let us do it on equal terms. Let us do it in a way similar to the way the European Union undertook integration. It had a bigger problem. It has 15 nation states but it took care of basic social issues first. It took care of the social charter that would equalize the standard of living.

There is a huge historic imbalance in the power relationship between Canada and the United States. That is why this is like the lion laying down with the lamb. It is not a deal between two equals. It is a deal between Canada and the largest economy in the world which happens to own 88% of Canadian industry. The U.S. already has a huge stake in Canada. It is the remaining 12% of Canadian ownership of our industries that we are bargaining with.

Some of us are not ready to give up on the idea of a sovereign nation state in Canada that is unique and different and does not need to harmonize with all things American.

The Canadian Alliance Party since it has been here has thought that all things American are good and all things Canadian are retarded. That is what we hear from the Canadian Alliance. It gets all its inspiration from the right wing evangelical movement in the United States. Whatever Pat Buchanan and Pat Robinson say in the United States, the Alliance brings here and tries to sell to the Canadian public.

However we are not buying it. We are not interested. There are still enough of us intent on preserving a distinct identity that Canada will not buy into that mindless idea.

I hate to say it but there are those who would exploit the tragedy in New York to expedite their vision of a single, integrated western hemispheric identity. It is not fair to exploit the tragedy in New York. The issue must be dealt with independently and not within the parameters of a simpler debate about the free movement of goods and services.

There are those of us who still care about the issue. I hate to sound like a Liberal but I probably sound like a Liberal from 1967 when Walter Gordon, Paul Martin Senior and others who had a vision of a unique Canadian identity used to stand proudly in the House of Commons and argue that we should not be economically dominated by foreign nations. They used to set rules and regulations about foreign ownership.

Where are the champions today? The only person outside the NDP who has spoken out in a loud and clear way is David Orchard of the Progressive Conservative Party. He asks those questions. Hardly anyone else seems to. Members seem to have resigned themselves to the benign indifference of the universe. They feel that American manifest destiny is inevitable and that there is no point in fighting it because we cannot resist it.

I put it to the House that we must have this debate without the emotional veil that has been thrust upon it by the tragedy at the World Trade Center in New York City. There will come a time when we must make a choice. Are we prepared to turn out the lights on the last shred of Canadian nationalism? Are we prepared to resign ourselves to the belief that we are merely Americans who are a little different?

The U.S. has sensed there is a difference today in that our Prime Minister did not rush automatically into the vengeance mode the Americans are justifiably feeling. No one blames the American government for speaking in strong terms about the need to avenge the assault on New York City. However our Prime Minister, to his credit, in the first reactions to the tragedy at the World Trade Center did not jump immediately into line with the American call for violent military intervention and revenge.

We are now paying the price for that. A significant number of Americans are disappointed with us. We first got snubbed when the U.S. president met with the president of Mexico before meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada. The second snub was in yesterday's speech, the single most important speech the president has ever given and arguably one of the most important speeches any U.S. president has given since the Checkers speech.

The speech did not contain one mention of Canada. Canada was shut out and snubbed. We were chastised in a diplomatic way for not being aggressive enough and falling into step, I would call it goose stepping, with the military initiative with which the Americans have seen fit to avenge the attack on their country.

I have pointed out some of the necessary and beneficial points of Bill S-23. However we in the NDP request that the Liberals delay consideration of the legislation until the World Trade Center tragedy has settled. We ask the government to freeze Bill S-23 pending investigation into its ramifications for western hemispheric integration.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Vancouver Kingsway B.C.

Liberal

Sophia Leung LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre recognizes that supporting business, especially Canadian business, is important.

We all know that about 85% of our trade is with the U.S. Bill S-23 is aimed at reducing costs for business by facilitating cross-border travel and business shipments. The bill also aims to protect the country from risk in terms of illegal shipping, including the passage into Canada of undesirable individuals.

I am sure the hon. member recognizes that we are trying to strengthen our border security, reduce risks for Canada and protect our business interests.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I think I made it clear that NDP members recognize the value of free and easy movement of goods and services between our two countries. That is clear. However we are concerned because when the U.S. ambassador to Canada calls for a more open border he is calling for retina and palm scanners to identify people. He is calling for electronic boxes on the bottoms of trucks that frequently cross the border so they can speed through without being interrupted. If we adopt such changes the U.S. might also want integrated immigration and perimeter security systems; in other words, North America-wide shared security.

It is a package deal. If we buy into what we see as housekeeping changes to the way we process goods and people crossing the border we must also buy into the idea of harmonizing our immigration system, customs enforcement procedures and border security along our water perimeter. The NDP is not prepared to go that far to accommodate the quicker movement of goods and services.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Madam Speaker, could the NDP member clarify or perhaps withdraw his remarks? How could an NDP member of the House possibly compare the contemplated actions of the Americans, of which we do not know all the details, to Hitler's goose stepping? How could he compare their response against terrorism to that?

The American's current assertiveness is due to their concern about the terrible things that happened to them last week. How could the hon. member possibly speak of that in the same breath as Hitler's goose stepping? I cannot comprehend why the NDP member or his party would do that. Perhaps he misspoke himself when he said it.

Could the member withdraw his remarks and indicate that he misspoke himself?

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, President George Bush stated in his speech last night that we are either shoulder to shoulder with the United States or shoulder to shoulder with terrorists. That is what led to my remarks.

We in the NDP see a third alternative which the Prime Minister and other ministers have also articulated or tried to get across. There are international and multilateral options we can explore.

I was trying to convey the sentiment that Canada should not fall automatically into line and goose step behind the most simplistic solution, which is a strong military strike at this time. We should resist and oppose that. That is an example of how differently I would like to believe our country is treating the issue. It is a graphic illustration of how Canada seeks to solve problems somewhat differently than the United States.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Madam Speaker, however well intentioned the member for Winnipeg Centre might be, I wonder if he has read the bill. Bill S-23 has nothing to do with economic nationalism or grandiose philosophical themes. It has nothing to do with harmonization.

Has the member turned on his television recently and seen the huge lineups of trucks at the border trying to get goods into the U.S. market? We know that many of the trucks and individuals trying to get through are low risk or no risk.

The whole intent of Bill S-23 is to try to streamline those processes and look at pre-approval or self-assessment with sanctions for non-compliance. That is what the bill is all about. That is why it is needed today more than ever.

I know that members on this side of the House met with business people in Sarnia and Windsor not too long ago. This is exactly the kind of thing they need because trucks are getting stuck at the border. If there was ever a time when we needed this bill it is today. It has nothing to do with integration with the United States.

Has the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre read the bill? If he has not, will he undertake to do so?

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, we are quite aware of what is in the bill. The negatives that we pointed out were things such as Canada not being ready for the debate on automation of our border. There are a number of other more practical aspects that I perhaps could have pointed out, such as the job loss associated with the automation of the border crossings. That has not been raised in the House and it probably should be.

Also the hon. member's intervention tries to lead us to believe that the bill was put forward as a result of the tragedy of the World Trade Center. It was not. It originated in the Senate long before this emergency took place.

I would ask the hon. member or representatives of the Liberal Party this. If this bill has such great merit and there is no subterfuge going on, why did it not originate in the House of Commons, as does most government business? We could then have debated these things openly, upfront and not have worried about what kind of a secondary objective the government was trying to achieve.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON

Madam Speaker, I object to the entire direction that the hon. member took during his speech; his references to goose stepping and American militarism. Maybe he was watching a different television feed than I was last week, but the United States was attacked. Several thousand Americans did die in an unprovoked attack upon civilian targets, people who went about their peaceful business. People of all races, all colours and all religions were killed. We are hearing that attempts to deal with this are somehow comparable to the sorts of things that Adolf Hitler did. For goodness, sake this is an offence. This should be withdrawn.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. There was no reference to Adolf Hitler. When I mentioned the word goose stepping, I said that Canada should not be quick to goose step behind one point of view without exploring other avenues of recourse to settle this international tragedy.

It should be settled in an international venue. The United Nations has been raised as the logical place to deal with this. This is not the same situation. There is no parallel in military or world history to draw from in terms of a terrorist attacking a nation state with such a degree of devastation. When we declare war, we declare war on another country, another nation state.

This is a unique situation that calls for a unique resolve. The NDP is calling for the Canadian government to find that third choice. It is not a choice of shoulder to shoulder with the United States or shoulder to shoulder with the terrorists. There is a third middle ground that we should be seeking, and I am pleased to see that in most cases our government is in fact following that voice of reason.

When I raised it in the context of losing our economic sovereignty, I used it as an example of one of the situations where we would be less able to control our own destiny and where we would be bound to rush to the aid, in an unquestionable way, of our dominant economic partner as we lost our economic sovereignty and our ability to chart our own destiny as a nation.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the PC/DR coalition. I will begin my remarks by rebutting some of the comments made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. I count him as a colleague. We worked together on the immigration committee, but I profoundly disagree with the assertions he made in his speech today.

I will begin by rebutting the statement that can be construed as being anti-American. At this time in our history this is not the time to proceed along this way of thinking. The United States has been looking for diplomatic solutions to the problem. It has not retaliated with a quick strike. Are the Americans responding? Yes they are and so they should, and we should be supporting them and be with them as well.

They are looking at economic and multilateral solutions to this crisis, They are bringing people along with them rather than striking quickly in some act of revenge as the member seems to be portraying.

The United States is a country that has welcomed immigrants from around the world. That was evident in the fact that there were individuals tragically taken from 62 different countries in the event in New York City. Let us not kid ourselves or try to pretend that our American friends and very close family are not a strong country, a welcoming country or a tolerant society because they are a tolerant and welcoming society. We have more in common with our friends from the United States than the member seems to know.

I want to rebut that way of thinking, particularly at this time, and send a message to our American friends that all members in this place would not be in sympathy with that kind of thinking because this is a time for action.

I want to turn to the bill before us today, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair. I know that you are a learned and wise member of the House. I congratulate you on your ascendancy to the chair.

I might add that I was disappointed in some of the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue this morning. In the face of what has happened in the world, it seems the government is carrying on as though nothing has changed. We are living in a different world now because of the tragic events that happened on September 11. It appears as though the government has simply blown the dust off a bill it had before this place previously, added a few comments in the minister's speech at the beginning and end, and has continued on as though nothing has changed.

The Americans' response to this tragic event was to gather congress together. They put together in 24 hours a detailed bill that reflected the new realities of what was happening in the United States, the amount of money that would be required to rebuild in New York and to increase security. Within 24 hours there was a detail coming together and response of America's leaders.

What do we have today in this place? A dusted off bill that does not address the new realities as a result of the tragic events of September 11. That is a shame. It demonstrates a lack of leadership from the government to address the details that need to be addressed.

I agree with my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona who proposed an amendment that the bill be withdrawn for reconsideration because it does not adequately address the new realities before us in our world, in our country and in dealing with our biggest trading partner and closest friend, the United States.

The minister today in the House talked about the management of our borders as an evolving process. I agree. It is going to evolve very quickly in ways that Canada needs to be engaged in and prepared to act together with. The evolving processes could very well be that the Americans say to us that they are moving on, that they want a secure border and perimeter around North America because our systems are so integrated. Individuals who come to Canada do have easy access to the United States. I do not think it is unreasonable for our neighbours to the south to ask us to work together with them. We need to do that and do it in more than just words. We need to commit by action.

I would submit that the bill demonstrates the level of commitment that the government has to making substantive changes that will make an effect.

One of my Liberal colleagues mentioned that there were long border lineups. Yes, there are and that will continue for a while.

The minister talked about a CANPASS program, a NEXUS program and a kiosk program to help speed up trade. We had better give our heads a shake if we think that the Americans will not look at those programs to see if they need to be revised. We had better get into the game with our good friend and closest ally because very quickly we could find ourselves on the outside looking in. Should that happen, that will have a huge impact on our economy, on our way of life and on our values.

I do not know if other members heard the speech by the president last night. One thing I noticed was that he was firm in his resolve. He has the American people, a united congress, the senate and the leadership of the entire nation solidly behind him and he is moving ahead to gather that kind of support worldwide.

I submitted earlier this week to the government that it had the same environment within Canada in terms of people wanting to support our friends and allies. The polls showed that approximately 80% of the people wanted us to help and support our closest ally. Yet we see very little concrete action. We hear words. We helped out at the very beginning. I acknowledge that and I congratulate those involved. It is time to continue on helping in concrete practical ways.

The bill fails to address those realities. We have many border crossings in our country that are not open 24 hours a day. They have remote cameras and close at 10 o'clock at night or midnight. Those are things that have to be considered in this new reality.

Are there many access points from Canada to the United States? Yes, there are. Do we want freer trade with America? Yes, of course we do. However, to ignore the new realities of what has happened in our world is just simply wrong. To ignore those new realities borders on negligence from the government because our country's economy is so integrated with the Untied States.

I and members of our coalition would liked to have seen, and I think all opposition members would have liked to have seen, some leadership from the minister on this bill in a way that would address these kinds of concerns that I am bringing forward.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of the bill called voluntary compliance. The minister talked about it this morning.

Let us spell out for people what that actually means. What that means is that on the Atlantic coast and on the coast of British Columbia ships arriving with goods are to call into a customs branch. That is what voluntary compliance means. We do have large unprotected borders.

If people were abusing the goodwill and freedoms of this country by engaging in an illegal activity, would they, as they arrived on our shores, pick up the phone and say that they are here, that they are bringing in illegal contraband and that they will be moving through the United States? No, that will not happen. We have a system in place that does not address those kinds of things in light of the new realities that happened as a result of September 11.

Last night in this place one of my colleagues from the Liberal side mentioned that we should not be talking about this as a battle of good and evil, that we just need to address the root causes and concerns of this issue. The real issue is about those who would do things that are evil. It is about a battle between good and evil. Though there may be just a few engaged in that, those few can wreak havoc among the many, as we sorely found out. For us to put our head in the sand and continue on as though nothing has changed is simply wrong.

Another colleague from the Liberal side quoted President Roosevelt, in a time of similar circumstances, going into World War II. He drew on the famous comment made that Americans should walk softly and carry a big stick. It seems as though the motto of this government has become to walk blindly and carry an empty bag of promises because there is a lot of talk but not enough action.

The actions we have seen from the government during its eight years in power are slowly starving the resources of our intelligence division, CSIS, within the RCMP, the RCMP and immigration funding, and an integrated approach to sharing intelligence information between those different agencies. It has had an impact and we are reaping the benefits of what the government's policies have been in those areas for these past eight years.

We would hope there would be quick response, in light of the events of September 11, to put more resources into those areas and to consider working closely with our friends in the United States. We need to look at the idea of a perimeter in which we are on the inside instead of a perimeter where we are on the outside looking in, as my colleague from the NDP would seem to want.

I want to touch on something my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona mentioned in his speech. He eloquently described his own experience as a refugee fleeing from Uganda under the regime of Idi Amin.

I want to disavow the false argument that to consider increasing security within our nation has to go hand in hand with the notion that we no longer welcome immigrants or refugees to our country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can look at increasing security in this country, and we must, but at the same time we can remain a country with a very strong immigration policy that supports the foundation of our country which was built on immigration.

At the same time, not to address security issues in that area and others is simply negligent and cannot be done.

Over the last seven to ten days many of us have been taken with the events that have happened and how they have changed our world forever. There is a lot of concern for many people, but there is concern on this side of the House that the government will handle this situation as it has handled others over and over again, and that is to sit and wait.

We have heard the talking points of taking a balanced approach. Yes, that is good. However, what has happened too often with the Liberal government is that a balanced approach has become a catch phrase for doing absolutely nothing when something needs to be done and leadership needs to be shown. If there were ever a time in our nation when our country, our neighbour's country and our world were looking for leadership, it is now.

I regret that the Minister of National Revenue has simply dusted off the bill from whence it came and reintroduced it without considering the new realities that happened as a result of September 11.

I will read some commentary from a news article of today in the Toronto Star . It says:

But nothing in the proposed bill, which goes back to the Commons for second reading today, is new. Nor have amendments or tighter border controls been introduced to the bill since last Tuesday's terror attacks on the U.S. It was first tabled and passed in the Senate last spring in a bid to speed trade over the border.

Further on in the article it states:

Top customs officials admitted to reporters it would be difficult to refuse a CANPASS to anyone who was, like “sleeper” terrorists in the U.S., perfectly integrated into the community with no criminal history.

A CANPASS is an expedited pass to get people back and forth across the border.

The above article is part of this new reality. If we think we can continue on without some implications of the events that have occurred in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, we are dreaming. The government is sleepwalking.

A better approach would have been to get the experts in this area together, to consult with our colleagues across the border to address the new concerns that have arisen as a result of last week's events. That has not happened. It certainly is not reflected in the actions of the bill before us. It is beyond me how we can pretend to continue on in this place without taking concrete actions to address these problems.

It is my hope that we as leaders in this place get on with striking committees quickly and with getting the people involved in trade to the table here. We must make the concrete changes necessary to address the new realities. We hope the government's motto will not be to walk blindly and carry a bag of empty promises. It must take concrete action. It has the will of the people and the support of the opposition parties to make these changes.

We implore the government to do the right thing and not pass this bill, which does not address the concerns, but get on with making the concrete changes that are necessary.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Haliburton—Victoria—Brock Ontario

Liberal

John O'Reilly LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague questions whether the U.S. would support the programs contained in Bill S-23.

I point out to the member and to anyone else who cares to listen that these programs, CANPASS, EPPS, NEXUS, are all similar to programs that currently exist in the United States. We are joint partners with the United States in the NEXUS program. The member talks as though we have no connection whatsoever or that somehow we have not consulted and that we are acting in isolation. This is not true.

How can the member say that the United States is not aware of these programs when we are joint partners with the United States? The member knows that. Trying to score a few cheap political points is inappropriate. I would like him to withdraw the fact that the United States is not aware of these programs. It is well aware of them. It is our partner.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. I never said that. He can check Hansard . The United States is clearly aware of these programs. What I said, and perhaps I will say it louder so he can hear it this time, is that if we do not take into account the new realities that happened on September 11, and that it is business as usual, and all the programs that we have negotiated with our friends are just going to continue on, were are in a dream world.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

John O'Reilly Liberal Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON

You are in a dream world.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

The member says that he is in a dream world. Of course he is because he has not taken into consideration one of the main points in my speech. If we do not get to the table with our partners now after the changes of September 11 and start talking about these kinds of things, a 12 hour border lineup is going to look like a short one for those who are exporting goods from our country to the United States.

We had better get involved. The member says that this is scaremongering. This is an honest question. It is something that the government needs to consider. If it does not think about these things, it is negligent and shame on the government.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I listened to most of the hon. member's speech, although I was out of the room for part of it, but I did not hear him answer the question that was raised by the Alliance member in the form of a motion about putting Bill S-23 away for the time being to deal with the larger issue of the international tragedy that happened at the World Trade Center.

Is it the position of the PC/DR coalition that it would like to see Bill S-23 go ahead but with the changes that he spoke about? Or is he in favour of our position and, I believe, the position of the motion, that Bill S-23 should not be considered at this time, at least until such time as the World Trade Center tragedy has been dealt with and the other issues of national security are dealt with?

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the question and perhaps it was at the time when he had other business to attend to that I actually did say that as an individual member I do support the motion.

Let me read the amendment as proposed by my colleague from the Alliance. It reads:

that this House declines to give second reading is to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, since the principle of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.

What I said throughout my speech was that I was disappointed that the Minister of National Revenue took out the old bill, blew the dust off of it and brought it in here. It sounded like the same kind of speech that has been given in this place before, as though nothing has changed in our world.

I do not think the minister has looked at changes that reflect the new realities based on the tragic events of September 11.

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, another matter comes to mind. The hon. member may have noticed in the National Post of yesterday, I believe, an article about the U.S. seeking common immigration rules.

It states that the U.S. ambassador to Canada yesterday sketched out the Bush administration's vision of a North American security perimeter that would go beyond the use of technology to speed up border crossings and go into the delicate substance of national refugee and immigration policies. In other words, as I mentioned in my speech, the U.S. ambassador is promoting the harmonization of immigration and refugee policies as a subject to sharing the new technological advances to speed up the transfer of goods and services across the border.

What is the position of the PC/DR coalition on the integration and harmonization of immigration and refugee policies as an aspect of improving the border crossings?

Customs ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Grant McNally Canadian Alliance Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I reflected on this in my speech. I will remind my colleague again that those are things we need to consider, talk about and debate. To reject them out of hand at the beginning of the discussion is unwise. We will have the possibility of the reality of our biggest trading partner keeping us on the outside looking in if we do not look at those kinds of questions.

Let me paint a practical application. Imagine that the United States puts in place some regulations having to do with air travel such that all flights in the United States have an air marshal on them. We have already heard the Minister of Transport reject that in this place as a radical notion. Let us say that our government decides we will not have air marshals on our flights to the United States which originate in Canada. A very real, practical application is that those flights would not get into American air space any more.

For us not to talk with our closest trading partner, ally and friend would be negligent. We must talk about these things. We must consider them and take concrete action to work together. It will have a devastating impact within our own economy and on our own way of life in Canada if we take an anti-American, holier than thou attitude on these kinds of things. We cannot do that. We have to get rid of that kind of rhetoric and openly, honestly and in a bipartisan way work together to solve these problems.

It will impact all of us as members because it will impact all of our constituents, no matter what region of the country we represent. As we know, approximately 80% of our population lives within an hour's drive of the border. To not ask these questions and not consider them at the beginning of these kinds of debates would be irresponsible. We must consider these kinds of questions raised by the member.