Don Davies

[Customs Act, May 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride to support the bill on behalf of our caucus and our leader.

The bill before us is Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act. We are very pleased to support the movement forward of the bill, because we have examined its provisions carefully, and although we have some small concerns, which I will itemize later in my speech, fundamentally it is a sound bill that will do much to both preserve security at our borders and enhance the movement of goods and people through those borders.

The bill really does a number of things. It provides legislative changes that are needed to provide a lawful basis for and allow the full implementation of previously approved key programs. These amendments will strengthen risk assessment, enforcement, trade facilitation and security.

The bill also embraces a number of technical and housekeeping changes that are required to implement the programs that I mentioned earlier, which have been put in place in the past several years.

The bill contains key amendments that provide a concrete response to a number of security concerns noted in the October 2007 report of the Auditor General.

The Canada Border Services Agency employs three fundamental strategies for managing the border. One is pre-approval programs. These programs are to expedite the movement of low-risk goods and people and to allow for strategic focus of resources on people and goods of higher and unknown risk. By focusing on the latter, we can more easily, quickly and with less interruption expedite the flow of the former.

The second strategy is advance information. The bill is intended to help stop threats before they reach our borders and to facilitate border processes for legitimate trade and travel.

The third is to turn information into intelligence. Because the Border Services Agency relies on sophisticated risk assessment systems based primarily on modern technology and techniques and the expertise and experience of employees at home and abroad, we need to ensure that they have the tools and the legal framework to allow them to carry out this important task.

The first major area where the bill improves Canada's border efficiency and security has to do with the new e-manifest system, which is really a commercial information system that will require carriers of goods and people coming into Canada to transmit that information in advance of coming into our country. That will provide our Canada Border Services Agency personnel with the ability to make more informed risk assessments, and conversely, allow through our borders the more free movement of people and goods that do not really present a risk to our country.

The current program, which is being amended by the bill, requires the owner or person in charge of the conveyance of air and marine modes to provide commercial information electronically prior to entering Canada. The regulations that we are proposing address the time, manner and data requirements, to require all links in the import trade chain to provide CBSA with this advance information. In other words, not just the owner or person in charge of the conveyance, but all links in the import trade chain will be required to furnish information in advance.

The rationale for this is that by providing advance electronic data, CBSA will be able to better target high-risk shipments while streamlining the entry of low-risk shipments. Without the amendment, compliance at present is on a voluntary basis.

Electronic reporting would also remain streamlined and timely, reducing the dependency on paper filing, and this is demonstrative of the commitment to sustainable development.

Many of the commercial carriers in our country, customs brokers and importers, would be able to more efficiently move their goods through our country's borders. Because they will be able to file their information electronically, it will be quicker and better for our environment.

I am happy to say that there have been external consultations. The source of focus in the committee's study of this bill was to ensure that the people who would be most affected by this change both understood the changes and that their views and ideas were taken into consideration. I am pleased to say that was done.

Trade chain partners in marine, air, highway, rail, importing, freight associations and brokers involved in various stages of the import chain have all been informed and consulted about this bill. We in the New Democratic Party will work to continue to ensure that the trade community will be consulted throughout the design, development and implementation of this project.

The second major area that this bill pays attention to has to do with the creation of what are called customs controlled areas. The current legislation designates customs controlled areas to be secure areas controlled by CBSA where international uncleared goods or persons may come into contact with domestic goods or persons, such as, for example, in airport lounges or areas on airport tarmacs.

Border officers currently have the authority to only question and search individuals when they are at exit points. In other words, all persons leaving a customs controlled area must report to a border services officer. The proposed amendment in this bill would retain the customs controlled areas and would not expand the powers of the Canada Border Services agents whatsoever.

What it would do is provide officers with the authority to stop, question and potentially search individuals within the customs controlled areas, not just at exit points. People would still be obligated to report to Border Services officers upon request but it would remove the onus on all persons to report upon exiting the area because now the officers would have the clear legal authority to stop people.

The reason we believe this amendment is a positive step is in areas where there are domestic workers, domestic goods or even domestic citizens coming into contact with international passengers or goods, there is the potential for security breaches. If people are entering and exiting these areas many times a day, taking the example of workers going in and out of customs controlled areas, it is simply beyond the resources of CBSA to follow and question those people each and every time they exit the area. It is a more efficient use of resources to grant the power to CBSA officials to stop higher risk or suspicious activity within the area.

This also would liberate people who go in and out of the area frequently from having to stop and report every time. It has a dual advantage, in my view. It both increases the efficiency and effectiveness of our CBSA officials and it is less of a burden on those who need to go into and out of customs controlled areas on a daily basis.

We also think these changes would improve the security at these points because testimony in committee indicated that it was these areas where conspiracies may develop. This is where people can meet within the customs controlled areas and potentially make arrangements that may allow for dangerous goods, services or people to travel in and out of our country. We think this is an important part of our security.

Once again, I want to make clear that there are no additional powers beyond what are currently given to the agents at our borders. It is simply a more effective means of delivering those powers.

This bill also contains other technical and housekeeping amendments, which I will not go through, but I will highlight some of them. There are amendments to valuation provisions that would make the act consistent with the WTO customs valuation agreement that Canada ratified in 1991.

There is a technical amendment to the advance passenger information personal name record program that would help clarify and make existing mandatory obligations for commercial carriers to provide passenger information electronically within prescribed time limits. Currently, there is no time limit on it. Carriers are required to provide that information prior to entering Canada or within a reasonable time of landing. These amendments would require that all information be provided prior to arrival in Canada, which would assist our personnel in processing the information and speeding up the process.

Language inconsistencies will be corrected, particularly with respect to ensuring that the French version of the legislation corresponds better with the English version.

I want to mention some of the concerns with this bill because the bill is not without its areas of concern. First, this bill does not delineate what exactly a customs controlled area is, rather, that is left to the discretion of the minister, which is somewhat concerning. Parliamentarians will need to be vigilant to ensure that the way the minister designates these areas does not go beyond the purpose of the bill. There has been some suggestions that customs controlled areas may include duty-free shops and, as was raised some time ago by my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas, may be extended to parking lots.

We need to be vigilant to ensure that the areas are restricted to the bare minimum in order to attain the object of the bill, which is to control the areas where international and domestic persons and goods intersect at border and customs controlled areas.

Second, another area that is left to the minister's discretion is the minister's ability to exempt certain persons from the requirements to be stopped within customs controlled areas. I asked a question on that at committee to ensure I understood the rationale for that. The answer was that this was for perhaps diplomatic personnel or emergency personnel, like ambulance or medical personnel who are rushing to an emergency, those kinds of things.

However, that is another area where we must be vigilant to ensure is controlled. It does no good to say that people entering the customs controlled areas are subject to search and questioning and then to allow the minister to exempt classes of people. We need to be sure that list is small and carefully justified.

There were other areas of concern that we on the committee and in our party were vigilant to ensure were taken into account in this bill. We received assurances that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to people in these customs controlled areas so they would not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. We wanted to ensure privilege would be respected. Many times lawyers travel through these areas and many of them have material that relates to their clients' privileged legal interests. We wanted to ensure their privilege was respected and that their material would not be subject to search and seizure.

We wanted to and did inquire into privacy concerns to ensure people's privacy interests were respected. I must say that is an area that is unclear at this point and, as parliamentarians, we must be vigilant to ensure the privacy interests of Canadians are respected in these areas, as they ought to be across our land.

We asked questions and ensured there would be plans to have proper training for all the CBSA officials, who may need to implement these broadened powers, to ensure they would be respectful of the issues that I just mentioned and effectuate their powers in a manner that is responsible and lawful.

We wanted to ensure, and did ask questions, that there would be adequate safeguards around the information or goods that are detained or seized. We wanted to ensure that the length of time the information or goods would be retained would be limited and that there would be restrictions on the disclosure of that information to third parties. We wanted to ensure the information would not be used for purposes beyond that for which it was garnered in the first place. We wanted to ensure information would be carefully controlled and, ultimately, disposed of, returned or destroyed so that it would not get out of the lawful possession of those who had an obligation to guard the privacy interests pertaining to that information.

Last, we wanted to ensure that the workers who had to work in customs controlled areas were informed of their rights and had their rights respected at all times in the implementation of this legislation.

Having said all of that, I want to congratulate the government for bringing forward this bill. We think it is measured and administratively well drafted legislation which, I might add, passed through committee with the unanimous support of all four parties. It is a model of how this Parliament can work when all four parties put aside their partisan differences and work together to try to provide solid, reasonable legislation.

I would like to congratulate all members of the committee from all parties who worked co-operatively and constructively to ensure the legislation was moved forward in an efficient, effective and logical manner.

[RCMP, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we should let the RCMP officers protect themselves then.

Yesterday, we saw yet another Canadian die after being tasered by RCMP officers in Brooks, Alberta. A major part of the problem is the continuing failure by the RCMP commissioner to issue clear and responsible policies on taser use by officers in the field. This negligence is costing lives. This is the 27th death since 2003 from taser use.

When will the minister instruct the RCMP commissioner to enforce clear and responsible policies on taser use and stop this avoidable pattern of deaths?

[RCMP, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to appeal the rights of RCMP officers to organize is a smack in the face to our national police force. On April 6 the Ontario Superior Court upheld their right to collective bargaining and said to deny it was unconstitutional.

The Liberal Party denied RCMP officers their rights for 13 years and now the Conservative government is carrying on that unjust legacy. This winter the government slashed RCMP wages and ripped up an agreement signed only six months before.

I have a simple question. Will the government allow RCMP officers to unionize if they choose, yes or no?

[Customs Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been calling for improvements in border security and, in particular, the examination and interdiction of counterfeit, illegal and harmful goods from being imported to Canada for some time. We want to congratulate the government for bringing in the bill. We think the amendments to the bill would increase CBSA's capabilities in these areas by allowing expanded searches.

I am also aware that the government has done a good job in consulting with various stakeholders in the country, including the Teamsters union and other stakeholders who are involved in the commercial movement of goods.

Could my hon. colleague share any information with us about the input received from other stakeholders, particularly in the commercial transportation of goods sector?

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her very well researched and delivered speech.

She mentioned the urgency of dealing with climate change. I fully concur with her concern and perspective on that basis. I am wondering if she could tell the House what her thoughts would be on the best means of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and whether she thinks that a carbon tax or a cap and trade system would be the best way to deal with that.

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, May 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in my home province of British Columbia I know how important the coastlines are to the citizens and how deeply they care about maintaining the pristine nature of the waters up and down the coast.

One of the many ways this concern is expressed is in ensuring that ships carrying toxic materials, such as oil tankers, are carefully regulated and, in fact, banned in many areas, so we do not run the risk of having terrible oil disasters, like what happened with the Exxon Valdez some years ago.

Could my hon. colleague from Western Arctic, whom I want to congratulate on his wonderful work on this bill, elucidate a bit on how the bill may or may not impact upon the possibility of dumping oil or other toxic substances in the pristine waters of the Arctic?

[Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, May 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his astute comments on the bill. Canadians are united in their desire to see a high level of diplomacy and negotiation conducted among all nations that touch on the Arctic. I believe there are five competing jurisdictions and we all understand the need for co-operation in this interconnected world in which we live.

Could my colleague comment on his views or feelings about the current state of diplomacy and international co-operation going on in this region and on the subject of the bill?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the public is hungry for reliable product safety information and a law that will get unsafe products off the shelves, if not keep them from being sold in the first place. Parents especially want safe toys. Ninety consumer products, many used by children, were recalled last year and already thirty-seven more this year.

Would the member comment on how she sees the bill affect the safety of products that are used by our children in particular?

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Wednesday, March 11, be concurred in.

New Democrats are pleased and proud to move concurrence to this motion that would place a moratorium on the deportation of people to Sri Lanka.

Of course, this raises the issue that is before the world right now of a horrible civil war that is going on in Sri Lanka where there are gross violations of civil and human rights taking place as we speak.

This motion also gives us an opportunity to discuss the longstanding oppression of the Tamil people and once again an opportunity for us to highlight the need, the immediate need, to recognize the political autonomy of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

I would like to share a little bit of history. Upon independence from British rule, Sri Lanka was left as a unitary state, without constitutional safeguards and protection of national minorities. Successive governments have imposed discriminatory policies to reinforce the notion that Sinhala is the national language and Buddhism is the state religion. This has resulted in widespread discrimination against the Tamil minority and repeated government-sponsored pogroms against the Tamil people.

Over the last 25 years of this conflict, over 70,000 people have been killed by government forces, the vast majority being Tamil civilians. Over half of the Tamil people have become refugees, most with multiple displacements: 800,000 in the west, 100,000 in India, and one million internally displaced people in Sri Lanka.

There is an unacceptably high level of political repression, restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly, press censorship, electoral abuses, low percentage of Tamil population eligible to vote, and even fixing of elections.

The level of human rights abuses and war crimes directed at the Tamil people is something that the world needs to stop immediately. There have been reports that can only be described as ethnic cleansing, shelling of civilian areas, disappearances, long-term detention without trial, torture, rape, the use of food as a weapon of war, large-scale arbitrary arrest, and the passage of oppressive laws.

There is a humanitarian crisis going on in Sri Lanka. Several NGOs, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have raised serious concerns about the ongoing humanitarian crisis taking place in north and east of Sri Lanka.

Since the Sri Lankan government unilaterally broke the six-year-old ceasefire brokered by the Norwegian government in January 2008, there has been a steady escalation in the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Over the past month, the Sri Lankan government has been pursuing an aggressive campaign to wipe out the Tamil Tigers, and innocent Tamil civilians in the north and east of Sri Lanka are caught in the crossfire.

Despite calls by the international community for an immediate ceasefire, the Sri Lankan government has categorically rejected the notion of a ceasefire and is bent on pursuing a military approach to the conflict. As a result, fierce fighting between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE continues to this day.

A humanitarian catastrophe is taking place in the northeastern part of the island as over 300,000 Tamils are entrapped within the conflict zone, cut off from basic necessities such as food, clean water, shelter and medical care. Each passing day brings more news of civilian casualties.

Issues of grave concern include the following: first, attacks on civilians in so-called safety zones.

Over the past several months, there has been an increase in aerial bombardment of Tamil villages in the north and east of Sri Lanka, resulting in unprecedented civilian casualties. The demarked safety zones have habitually come under attack by the Sri Lankan government forces.

On January 22 over 300 civilians were killed when the Sri Lankan air force bombed a civilian site in a declared safety zone. On February 9 thousands of civilians fled as an entire area demarcated by the government, again as a so-called safety zone, came under mortar, artillery and rocket fire. Since the beginning of this year, almost 6,500 people have been killed, Tamil civilians, and 14,000 have been injured. These are statistics as of April 24.

Second, the Sri Lankan government is blocking humanitarian aid. For months, the Sri Lankan government has been blocking all international humanitarian aid from reaching civilians in the conflict area.

In September 2008 the government ordered all international aid workers to leave Tamil areas, with only the Red Cross and World Food Program remaining. With the escalation of violence, the Red Cross has stated it is prevented from operating in the area. In a news release dated February 10, the Red Cross stated:

Most of the region's population is now displaced and completely dependent on outside aid, yet none has reached the area since 29 January.

Third, there are massive abuses at government detention centres. Amnesty International has reported that individuals who have left LTTE-controlled areas are being “held in de facto detention centres, or so-called welfare villages and are vulnerable to abuses by government forces”.

Human Rights Watch has criticized the treatment of civilians fleeing the conflict zone and described the detention camps as no better than war prisons. The Sri Lankan government has announced plans to open up more permanent detention centres and force 250,000 trapped civilians to reside in these internment camp facilities for the next three years.

Fourth, there is a lack of medical care in the conflict area. In direct violation of international humanitarian law, the Sri Lankan government has repeatedly shelled local hospitals in the conflict area. A top government health official has confirmed the attacks on a hospital and health care workers, and that has been corroborated by international aid agencies.

The only working hospital in the war zone was evacuated and forced to close down due to repeated shelling. The shelling has continued to affect the provision of medical care, and makeshift hospitals sheltering patients have also come under attack. The Red Cross has reported that medical convoys transporting the sick, injured and wounded have been hit by shelling and aid workers have been killed and injured evacuating the wounded.

Article 18 of the IV Geneva Convention states:

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

The Sri Lankan government is violating this preceptive international law and committing war crimes in the process.

Fifth, there is suppression of the media. Reporters Without Borders have stated that Sri Lanka is the third most dangerous country in the world for journalists. Since 2006 over 14 journalists have been killed. As the conflict has escalated, government censorship of media has also intensified. Amnesty International reports that newspapers have been closed down, employees intimidated and attacked, and websites blocked.

There is a consistent and persistent campaign by the government to silence media and critical voices. In January the editor of The Sunday Leader was assassinated in Colombo after publishing editorials that were critical of the government's approach to the armed conflict.

In particular, we are concerned about the forceful abduction and arrest of the editor of Uthayan, the only Tamil daily functioning from the Jaffna Peninsula. According to eyewitnesses, he was forcibly taken by men into a white van while attending the funeral of a close relative. These so-called white van abductions have become the means by which the Sri Lanka state curtails any divergent opinions. He has not been released despite calls by international press agencies as well as human rights organizations.

This is the country to which we in the New Democratic Party are saying we should not be deporting anybody. There are civilians in Sri Lanka who are being murdered by the thousands as we speak. This is the country that the government opposite, the people on the other side of this House, think ought to be defended and supported. This is a disgrace.

This country is dangerous. It is reminiscent of past episodes of turning back refugees, such as South Asians at the British Columbia border or those fleeing the Holocaust. Canada should not be complicit in this. Not only that, but Canada has to protect people in Canada at the moment, all residents of Sri Lanka, and keep them in this country until the conflict is stopped.

Beyond that, we must press the government of Sri Lanka to call for a ceasefire immediately, to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the sovereignty claims of the Tamil population, and end the oppression of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka.

The world is watching. It is time that we took action on this to protect these people.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago representatives of the Canadian Teachers' Federation visited me in my office in Parliament. They talked to me about poverty in students and children, particularly young children aged 5 to 11. They reminded me that the House passed a resolution in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. It is now 20 years later and the poverty statistics for children in Canada are exactly the same. We have made no progress.

When the Conservatives try to talk about prevention programs, I would remind them that it would start with ensuring that our children have the ability to go to school and pay attention and live lives of dignity. Why? Because children, as the teachers told me, come to school poorly dressed and hungry. They cannot pay attention. They are distracted. They are ashamed. Their parents move around and they have to change schools, so they do not have educational stability. What happens to these kids when they do not get that early head start in life? What happens to these kids when they are 14, 15 and 16 and do not have an educational future in which to look forward?

These conditions lead many children, who have poor prospects for the future, to despair. Every dollar we invest in our young people, in our children in programs like head start, as my hon. colleague just pointed out, is true crime prevention. It is an investment in our future that all parliamentarians should support, and I urge them to do so.