Bill S-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Customs Act

This enactment amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions and to make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, amends provisions respecting the determination of value for duty, and modifies the advance commercial reporting requirements. Finally, it provides that regulations may incorporate material by reference.

Customs Act

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate having this chance to add my voice of support for this worthy legislation.

The Canada Border Service Agency operates at 1,200 service points across Canada and nearly 40 locations abroad and employs over 14,000 public servants. Since its inception, the Canada Border Service Agency has been working to integrate and build on the many risk management strategies and processes adopted by their legacy organizations, the Canada Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The proposed legislation will enhance our ability to manage risk and improve border operations by strengthening the systems for obtaining advance data on goods and people arriving in Canada and by better managing the risks existing at air and sea ports. Indeed, the provisions of the legislation help us to address some of the concerns of the Auditor General of Canada, identified in her November 2007 report entitled, “Keeping the Border Open and Secure”.

It is clear that free nations, including Canada, cannot guarantee absolute safety against border threats. For example, Canada welcomes more than 95 million travellers to Canada every year and approves the entry of over $400 billion in imported goods annually. Therefore, our focus must be on risk management.

CBSA's risk management is multi-layered. Operations are based on three fundamental strategies: pre-approval programs to facilitate low-risk people and goods; advance information on what and who is coming to the border; and intelligence using partnership networks, sophisticated science and technology.

The development and deployment of science and technology is crucial in supporting these strategies: electronic commerce systems to receive advanced trade data; biometrics for identifying trusted travellers; and sophisticated technologies to detect radiation, drugs, guns and other contraband and potentially dangerous goods.

During the past five years, the Canada Border Service Agency has developed a robust and sophisticated border management regime with a scientific approach to risk assessment and detection, and the results are impressive. Consider that over 10,800 drug seizures were made in the 2007-08 fiscal year, 5,700 weapons were seized, including 671 firearms prevented from entering Canadian communities. Over 7,000 items of child pornography, hate propaganda and obscenities were stopped at the border. In 2007-08 the Canada Border Service Agency removed 12,349 individuals who were inadmissible to Canada, including 1,664 criminals who posed a high risk to our country. That is a 40% increase from 2002-03.

The CBSA is now engaged in important initiatives that will further transform and modernize border management, including arming border guards and eliminating situations where they are working alone, implementing a new manifest system, which will provide advance electronic reporting for goods at the land border, and working with our U.S. counterparts to ensure that the western hemisphere travel initiative is implemented as smoothly as possible and does not impede travel and cross-border trade.

While the Canada Border Service Agency has increased its ability to detect and respond to security threats, the Customs Act has not changed since substantially since 2001. The proposed changes will ensure that the CBSA continues to evolve, while strengthening its officers' abilities to combat internal conspiracies and organized crime at ports of entry.

To combat internal conspiracies and organized criminal activity at ports of entry, the government created the concept of customs controlled areas in 2001. These zones are designated areas where international travellers and goods not yet released by the CBSA may come into contact with port of entry workers and other travellers. Implementation of the custom controlled areas concept has been impractical due to legislative constraints.

The current legislation gives Canada Border Service Agency officers the authority to examine goods and question and search people only as they exit the customs controlled area, including persons working inside the area who would otherwise not have to present themselves to the CBSA.

The proposed amendments will provide border service officers with greater flexibility to patrol and monitor these controlled areas. In particular, they will have the authority to question and search people, as well as examine their goods both within customs controlled areas and when they exit these designated areas. This initiative will improve the security of Canadians as it will act as a deterrent to internal conspiracies at points of entry and decrease the risks posed by organized crime and national security threats.

The proposed changes to the Customs Act will also enable the CBSA to implement its eManifest initiative. The eManifest initiative is the next planned phase of the advanced commercial information initiative, which currently provides border services officers with electronic air and marine cargo information in advance so they are equipped with the right information at the right time to identify health, safety and security threats before goods arrive in Canada.

The eManifest initiative will require that businesses involved in the import trade chain, including those from the highway and rail modes, provide electronic data on their shipments before they reach Canada. The CBSA is working closely with industry and stakeholders to ensure a smooth, cost efficient transition to the new reporting requirements.

Extensive consultations on project requirements with stakeholders were held throughout the first two phases of the advance commercial information project. The CBSA continues to use these strong consultative networks as a forum for dialogue, input and guidance in the development of the eManifest initiative.

The Canada Border Services Agency consults with members from all facets of the trade community, including carriers, freight forwarders, importers, customs brokers and bridge and tunnel operators, regarding the design, development and implementation of the eManifest initiative. Various working group meetings have been held over the past two years with member of the trade community to ensure that eManifest design and development activities are coordinated with those of the external community.

As a result of this legislation, the Canada Border Services Agency will be better able to make informed decisions about the admissibility of goods, including identifying unknown and high-risk threats before the shipments arrive. The Canada Border Services Agency will be able to focus its resources on those goods that pose the greatest risk to Canada's security and prosperity. As well, low-risk shipments will be processed in a timely and efficient manner, which is vital to Canada's prosperity and economic competitiveness.

There are some additional elements within the proposed legislation that will further strengthen border security. The advance passenger information/passenger name record program collects and analyzes information in advance on air travellers coming into Canada in order to identify persons who may pose a safety and security risk.

Advance passenger information includes the traveller's name, date of birth, citizenship or nationality, passport or other travel document data. Personal name record data includes the travel itinerary, address and check-in information. This information is gathered by the airlines in their reservation, check-in and departure control systems.

Changes to advance passenger information provisions in the proposed legislation will require passenger and crew data to be provided to the CBSA before a conveyance arrives in Canada, allowing the CBSA to conduct a more timely risk assessment and addressing a gap noted in the November 2007 Auditor General report.

As carriers are already required to submit advance passenger information/personal name record data to the CBSA, the proposed legislative change will not have an operational impact on them and will make the Customs Act consistent with CBSA policy. In fact, the information carriers provide to the CBSA is the same information that they already collect for their own business purposes.

The data collected under the advance passenger information/personal name record program is protected under the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The CBSA has consulted the Privacy Commissioner and has implemented strict administrative policies and guidelines to protect the privacy of personal information, including the number, collection, access, retention and use of this information.

Another part of the bill proposes to amend the present act to permit a regulation made under it to incorporate material contained in another document without reproducing that other document word for word within the text of the regulation itself. Incorporation by reference, as this process is called, can help simplify the regulatory process and is often used to incorporate material of a technical nature.

Material which is incorporated by reference is reviewed by the Department of Justice in a manner similar to a draft regulation. It is carefully reviewed for adherence to the law generally and, in particular, to the charter.

It is worth noting that when the bill was considered in the other place, an amendment was made. The amendment removed the statement to the effect that material incorporated by reference is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act. The removal of that statement addressed the concern that was raised about wider government practice in this context. To the extent that members of the House might share such concerns, I hope they too will be supportive of this amended language.

More technical changes are proposed within the legislation. Housekeeping amendments will align the act with Canada's obligation as a signatory to the 1994 agreement on the implementation of article 7 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. These amendments would improve the alignment of the Customs Act with the World Trade Organization evaluation agreement by which the value of imported goods is determined.

Inconsistencies will be fixed between the existing French and English versions of the act. The Government of Canada is moving forward on key initiatives that increase Canada's border security and support economic prosperity. The proposed changes to the Customs Act would give the Canada Border Services Agency the information, tools and flexibility it needs to better detect threats and tackle crime at the border.

I urge my hon. colleagues to speedily pass this legislation.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has considered exit controls for foreign nationals visiting Canada or foreign refugees who have been declined and may pose a security risk?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, there are no exit controls at this time and there are no plans to implement exit controls in this country.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, we are discussing the full implementation of customs controlled areas.

I would like the member to explain the overall functioning of what is being identified and called a customs controlled area because it is not clear from the bill. We perhaps should read the statute to compare them, but when I look at the bill, it is not clear to me what is meant by a customs controlled area.

What exactly do they encompass physically and what exactly do they do?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, the customs control area already exists. The bill would give the CBSA people the authority to operate within that customs control area. They do not need to wait until people leave the area. Some goods that are within that customs control area may escape the Canada Border Services Agency from dealing with it.

It addresses some of the issues with respect to employees who may have been compromised by outside bodies that are attempting to use them for their own purpose. It would enhance Canada's security and at the same time give us a better opportunity to deal with things within that already controlled area that exists.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member opposite has already identified, this is not only a win-win situation for Canada and the people who work in the airports but also for that broader perspective of people who ship legitimate product in and out of the country.

There has been a wide range of consultation, as I addressed earlier in my speech, with the shipping industry, with importers and with the people who do the documentation on all of these things coming in and out of Canada. My understanding is that the proposed amendments are well-respected and have been well-received by everyone in the industry. I think it is one of those bills that will receive support in the House, and I thank the member again for his support.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. The Senate has done a lot of good work to bring the bill to this place.

I will go through the bill and some of the concerns that I have, but it behooves us to talk in a general context about the importance of balancing, on the one hand, very important security concerns, particularly in the wake of both threats to the country and threats of counterfeit and illegally manufactured goods coming into the country, against the need to keep our border open. This bill comes out of the Auditor General's 2007 report in which she detailed many concerns that she had with the Canada Border Services Agency in chapter 5, under a section entitled “Keeping the Border Open and Secure”.

We have a climate where 96 million passengers enter Canada every year. These are tourists, immigrants, refugees, business people and returning Canadians. We also have over $400 billion in imported goods annually. The volume of trade that crosses into our country is vital to our nation. While we know there are concerns, we need to ensure we see that free flow of trade continue. It is a delicate balancing act but a very important one for our economy and security.

I had the opportunity, as many in our caucus did, to be in Vancouver on the weekend and to visit the Vancouver Port. I do not think a lot of Canadians are aware of just how remarkable the Vancouver Port is. It is an example to the world. The port has people arriving from every corner of the earth to see exactly how it is operating and how it has developed a very advanced system to deal with its goods and services and keep competitive.

The Vancouver Port has been able to take, what was only about half of Canadian goods and services crossing in through Vancouver, because a lot of it was going through Seattle, to almost 97% of all goods because it moves things so efficiently and its security is so effective. It has cameras around the entire bay. When one goes into its main operation room, it can instantly give a viewpoint of anything that is happening everywhere. That has become important in law enforcement, but it is also extremely important in tracking goods and services.

A lot of great things are happening on our border. However, while there are improvements and there are things that need to be done, such as those discussed in Bill S-2, one of the first things we need to acknowledge is that we have a very effective border that our international trading partners should know is secure. This is particularly important in conversations that we have been having with the United States where we have seen a lot of legislators talk about concerns they have with the Canadian border. These concerns are clearly unfounded if one takes a look at our border relative to others.

I mentioned counterfeit goods, which is of particular concern. This bill would give the Canada Border Services Agency greater ability to go after counterfeit goods. We know this is a massive problem for the recording industry, which is seeing an enormous amount of illegally produced music. Movies also come in through shipments. We also have problems with drugs, which we want to be able to stop at the border.

In the 2007 report by the Auditor General, she identified a number of shortfalls in terms of the assessment of high-risk passengers and dangerous goods that were coming over the border. It was important to address those deficiencies. The Senate has been working carefully on those and, for the most part, it has found a good balance in this bill at addressing a number of items of concern. We are just moving toward second reading and it will be important that we examine these items in detail in committee.

I will now go through both a background of the bill and a little bit of analysis of some of the areas that we will want to pursue when the matter comes before committee. I should mention that this bill is actually a reintroduction of Bill C-43 from the second session of the 39th Parliament. That bill did not progress beyond first reading. Bill S-2 has now passed through the Senate and the Liberal senators who were there were instrumental in providing much of the content of this bill. I had many conversations with them about it and I am generally comfortable with the direction of it. They offered several amendments, one, in particular, was to eliminate a clause that would have allowed for material incorporated by reference through the regulation to not be considered a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

The changes in the bill can be grouped in two principal parts. The first part is the expansion of activity within a customs controlled area that officers can search, seize and stop people within a customs controlled area. The second part is advance passenger information and privacy issues that might be involved and the expansion of that information to all forms of transporting of goods into Canada, whether by ships, ports, airports or land crossings.

I would like to address the main changes in the bill and some of the areas where we will want to get a bit more information as we move through committee.

The first is clause 2 of the bill. This would now give the minister the power to directly authorize access to a customs controlled area by a person. Prior to this, the minister had the power to authorize by regulation only.

Clause 3 would do two things. It would remove an exemption that would allow persons boarding a flight to a destination outside of Canada leaving a customs controlled area from presenting and identifying themselves to an officer, reporting any goods obtained in the area and answering questions asked by an officer. Further, it would expand the presentation and identification requirements for individuals who would be in any part of the customs controlled areas. As may be known, prior to this, individuals only had to present upon leaving. It also now would include the examination of goods.

Clause 4 would be a change in regulation-making powers to include prescribing the person or classes of person who may be granted access to the customs controlled areas. We have some questions with respect to what these specific classifications mean but, again, we are happy to take up those questions in committee.

Clause 6 would grant regulation-making authority regarding the advance information that would be required for the importation of goods.

Clause 7 would amend the methods available to adjust the transactional value of goods being imported when the vendor received a benefit from subsequent sale. It would allow adjustments to the transaction price. This may lead to higher valuations, meaning higher duties being paid by importers, which is an issue that has raised some concern.

Clauses 8 and 9 would make technical changes intended to harmonize the act's French and English versions, although the deletions of certain terminology would make the French version different in some places. In that regard, we will want to take a look at the translation more carefully in committee to ensure that the intent of the act is not in any way compromised.

Clauses 10 and 11 would amend the bill to allow customs officers to search persons who would be in or who would be leaving a customs controlled area if the officer suspected, on reasonable grounds, that the person had concealed something that would be in contravention of the Customs Act, or regulations, or any other federal law prohibiting regulation or controlling importation and exportation and to search and examine goods in the possession of a person who may have been abandoned in a customs controlled area.

Clause 12 would amend the prescribed time and manner in which a person or class of persons must provide prescribed information about a person on-board a conveyance. It would not, however, change the prescribed information that is currently required by the act.

The Customs Act, which was first enacted in 1867 to ensure the collection of duties, control the movement of people and goods and to protect the Canadian industry from real or potential injury caused by the import of dumped or subsidized goods or any other form of unfair competition, needs to be updated. The act provides a legislative authority to administer and enforce the collection of duties and taxes. It is not a taxing statute.

The current Customs Act was revamped in 1986 to take into account the developments in transportation, communications, trade and business practices. Since 1986, the act has been continuously amended in response to free trade and related international trade agreements into fine-tuned international trade measures.

It is important to state that many of the stakeholders that have commented on this bill, whether it is the Greater Toronto Airports Authority or the Canadian Airports Council, have been very supportive. We know that those involved, whether it is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or various trade unions, have been supportive. I think some of the concerns they have stated can be addressed at committee.

Again, with that qualification in place, we want to ensure we strike the appropriate balance between providing appropriate security at our border and ensuring that our border is open. We look forward to continuing work on the bill, seeing it move past second reading and dealing with it in committee.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, several changes may be made to the Canada Border Services Agency. For various reasons, more flexibility is required. They also want to expand the controlled areas. However, as the member mentioned earlier, this should not become complicated, nor should an arbitrary approach be taken to problems of accessibility. Above all, we must create an efficient flow of goods and people. Obviously, there is the issue of security, but on occasion, people find themselves in unusual circumstances.

According to the member, how do we reconcile having an efficient and smooth flow through border services, and a certain level of security, for those goods and individuals we do not wish to have in our territory? How does the member believe we can reconcile these two equally important elements?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a difficult balance to achieve and it is one of critical importance. We know for a lot of businesses, for example, General Motors, which is east of my riding in Oshawa, that just in time delivery is absolutely critical to their operations. If they need to get their materials across the border to their plants and are unable to get those materials in timely fashion, it can mean millions of dollars in lost revenue, which could actually threaten the viability of those businesses. Therefore, maintaining flexibility and ensuring these borders are open is an important priority.

As I mentioned in my comments, we also have a number of security related concerns at the border, not just with dangerous individuals but also with dangerous goods being potentially transported, as well as counterfeit goods.

One of the most important ways we can streamline our process is to ensure that we enhance our trusted trader practices for companies that regularly transport goods and are known to be good. We need to continually work with them to streamline those processes to ensure they are able to move those goods and services freely across the border and have regular spot checks at the same time.

Enhanced technology provides, if we make that investment, an important ability to very quickly process information and to assess risks and dangers. If we share with the international community information on some of the other threats that exist, where individuals or companies are engaged in less than desirable activities in other jurisdictions, then we have a greater opportunity to note what to watch for.

I mention Vancouver very specifically. If the member takes a look at some of the things it has done and how it has implemented technology, it not only allows it to provide a more secure border and a more secure port, but because of the speed and the up to date the technology it is also able to move those goods and people very quickly.

Those are sort of dual objectives that do not necessarily need to be at odds with one another.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask our hon. colleague for some additional information. This morning we learned that the Canada Border Services Agency allowed people to enter Canada who could have close ties to terrorists.

Could the bill currently before us have helped in any way to avoid the situation we now find ourselves in?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the advanced passenger information dealt with in the bill can assist, but there is no doubt more has to be done on the border than just the bill. It should not be seen as a panacea, sort of as a catch-all and a solution for all the problems identified by the Auditor General. She quite rightfully pointed out that there were many examples where CBSA was not catching individuals who posed a threat to Canada. She also mentioned goods.

The bill goes part of the way, but a lot of work still has to be done with the Canada Border Services Agency. I would be happy to talk about that in more detail.

One thing that is really important is to have oversight as well. It is very disturbing to me that CBSA does not have direct parliamentary oversight. This has come up in many reports. If we are to have the ability to follow-up on these things and get a complaint mechanism that goes somewhere, where we can get strong recommendations and instant action, then we need to start with an oversight mechanism similar to what was recommended by Justice O'Connor.

I do not want to hold the bill out as solving all the problems. The member has identified the fact that other issues need to be addressed outside of this legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has raised the issue of security of goods and services entering its country and also exiting to Canada.

I would like the member to comment on one particular circumstance.

The bill would appear to improve some elements of accountability and public safety at the border, but at the same time the government has allowed CP Rail to fire 17 mechanical workers in the Windsor-Essex County area. These workers inspected trains coming into Canada from the United States.

The Mississauga derailment was the largest evacuation of people in North America before hurricane Katrina. Two hundred thousand people were evacuated. The trains involved in that derailment originated in Windsor. We have a lot of hazardous waste materials. Trains coming from Chicago and other areas heading to Toronto will not get the same level of inspection as a result of CP Rail firing those mechanical workers. Those trains will end up on our rail system.

There is a contradictory message here. We are trying to improve land border, but there is a contradiction taking place on the actual rail elements.

It is important to note that Transport Canada looked at the percentage of railcars that needed to be repaired and 36% failed. At the same time, Transport Canada could not even provide a measurement of those railcars coming into Canada from the United States.

This sends a mixed message. Ms. Napolitano of the Department of Homeland Security in the United States raised an issue about security at the border. The fact that we no longer have inspection service in southwestern Ontario is going to create a problem later on.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a number of important points.

I have been deeply concerned about some of the cuts that have been made to the Canada Border Services Agency. The particular example that my colleague has raised is deeply concerning because it impacts security. There are deficiencies there.

We have to be careful in the message that we send. It would be fair to say that our border is as secure as the American border. I mentioned the Vancouver port as one example, where we have greater security. We need to get that message out.

That is not the member's point. The question the member asked related to ensuring that we continued to move forward in all directions. In other words, not just do some good things with Bill S-2, but ensure we provide the Canada Border Services Agency with the resources, both human and technological, to do its job.

One concern I have in this regard is the huge amount of money being spent to arm our border guards, around $1 billion, yet the RCMP has made it clear that this will not improve safety. I would much rather see that money going toward improvements at the various checkpoints. We have to ensure that we have the appropriate staff and technology to screen goods and services efficiently and quickly and actually improve service.

Making these kinds of cuts in the hope that they will not be seen in the background undermines the security of our border and our ability to ensure that the goods and services travelling back and forth are safe. This not only provides a security risk to our country, but, as the member quite rightfully points out, it undermines confidence in Canada internationally.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed debating the border services act. I would like to begin by reading the summary of Bill S-2.

This enactment amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions and to make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, amends provisions respecting the determination of value for duty, and modifies the advance commercial reporting requirements. Finally, it provides that regulations may incorporate material by reference.

Basically, as the title of the paragraph indicates, important factors must be put into context. If we take a moment to look at this bill's progress, we all know that Bill S-2 was introduced by Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative leader in the Senate, on January 29, 2009. It passed third reading on April 23, 2009, and was sent to the House of Commons. It should be pointed out that it is identical to a bill bearing the same number and title introduced on December 2, 2008, as well as to Bill C-43 introduced on February 15, 2008, during the second session of the 39th Parliament. Both of those bills, of course, died on the order paper.

Bill S-2 amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions of the French version of the act and make technical amendments to others. It also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, grants the minister the power to authorize entry, amends provisions respecting the determination of value for duty, and modifies the advance commercial reporting requirements. The search powers of customs officers are expanded to include individuals and their goods that are in or are leaving a customs controlled area. The bill also provides that regulations may be enacted that describe the time frame and manner in which information about passengers may be provided by prescribed persons.

The current Customs Act is the result of the total revamping of the 1867 act, which was undertaken in 1986 to maintain the original act’s three purposes and to allow for greater flexibility in light of developments in transportation, communication, trade and business practices.

Since 1986, the Customs Act has been amended continuously in response to free trade and related international agreements and to fine-tune international trade measures.

Primarily, though, this bill is designed to provide Canada Border Services Agency officers with information, tools and the flexibility they need to identify threats and prevent criminal activity, while ensuring that legitimate goods and travellers can cross the border efficiently.

Under the amendments that have been announced, all businesses that are part of the import chain are required to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with electronic data on their shipments before the goods reach Canada. With this advance information, the Canada Border Services Agency will be able to make better decisions about admitting goods and analyzing the risks they pose to Canadians.

Other changes will allow the agency to fully establish customs controlled areas that will provide greater flexibility to officers for examining goods or questioning and searching persons, regardless of their location within these zones, and not only at exit points as currently provided under the existing legislation. Even though Bill S-2 seems adequate at first glance, an in-depth review of this legislation and close questioning of government and Canada Border Services Agency officials will be necessary.

The bill also includes other amendments. Here are some of the main changes to the Customs Act that are proposed in Bill S-2. Clause 2 eliminates the requirement for the minister to make a regulation to grant access to a customs controlled area to any person. From now on, the minister will be able to authorize such access directly. Clause 3 eliminates the exemption that applies to persons leaving a customs controlled area to board a flight with a destination outside Canada. Now, these persons will be required to present themselves to an officer, identify themselves, report any goods acquired while in the customs controlled area, and answer questions.

Clause 4 amends the power of the governor in council to make regulations respecting the persons or classes of persons who may be granted access to a customs controlled area, and regarding the manner in which a person in a customs controlled area, or a person leaving such area, must present himself or herself. Clause 5 amends the requirement to report goods imported into Canada, so that a prescribed person, and not the person in charge of the conveyance, must report the goods at the nearest customs office. So, a regulation defining those prescribed persons will determine who must report the goods at the nearest customs office.

Clause 12 of the bill amends the act to allow the minister to set the prescribed time and manner in which he can require a prescribed person to provide information about any person on board a conveyance, under prescribed circumstances and conditions. Clause 7 amends the methods used to adjust the transaction value of imported goods when proceeds accrue to a vendor following a subsequent sale. This change can lead to the setting of a higher value and, consequently, to an increase in the duties paid by importers.

Clause 10 amends the act to authorize an officer to search any person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about their person anything in respect of which this Act or the regulations have been or might be contravened. Clause 11 amends the act to enable an officer, in accordance with the regulations, to conduct a non-intrusive examination of goods in the custody or possession of a person who is in or is leaving a customs controlled area.

Our main point of disagreement with Bill S-2 is that the Customs Act is a linking legislation between duties and tariffs paid by importers under the customs tariff, and security and safety legislation under various other Acts. The changes made to the methods of valuation of imported goods may also decrease disputes regarding the calculation of duties. This may also increase revenues obtained from duties if the value of imported goods is more likely to be adjusted upward as a result of the proposed changes in the valuation provisions.

The advance information requirements proposed by the bill are intended to improve risk assessment of imported goods at the border.

Combined with the expanded search powers of officers in customs controlled areas, this may lead to decreased amounts of dangerous counterfeit goods entering Canada through customs controlled areas.

Currently, border services agents are authorized to search individuals only at exit points from controlled areas. If this bill is passed, border services agents will be authorized to conduct searches in controlled areas, as Ms. Kerr-Perrott explained during the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence's examination of Bill S-2. She said:

—an officer would question the person at an exit point, where the person must speak to a CBSA officer. The officer can ask questions and can search if it is deemed necessary. In this new scenario, the customs officers could ask similar questions within the customs controlled area, and if there are reasonable grounds to conduct a search, the officer would indeed proceed with a search. The officers would be trained appropriately, and individuals within the customs controlled areas would be advised of the possibility that a search could occur. There would be notification.

The Minister of Public Safety has provided assurances that officers conducting these searches will be subject to the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to protecting the constitutional rights of the individuals searched. However, the bill also grants discretionary authority to the government to establish and even expand these areas. The controlled area could be expanded to cover the entire airport or port and even parking and drop-off areas.

The authority granted to border services agents would be disproportionate. Consequently, an in-depth study of these provisions must be carried out in committee. I would like to point out that the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Transport Canada support the changes to customs controlled areas. Airport authorities also consider the use of customs controlled areas to be a reasonable security measure and port authorities acknowledge the need for customs controlled areas in proximity to commercial and cruise ships.

To summarize, it is important to understand that there is a great need for flexibility at borders and in customs. We have also known for a number of years that there is also a great need for security.

Thus, both elements must be considered to ensure that border crossings and security are efficient. That is why I reiterate that flexibility is required in order to detect threats and to prevent criminal activities while ensuring that legitimate goods and travellers can freely cross the border.

I will close by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S-2.

As I said earlier—and it bears repeating—the bill will be sent back to committee, where certain aspects will be examined closely in order to improve the bill and increase its effectiveness. As I have already said, even if, at first glance, the bill seems acceptable, it must scrutinized. We must also further question Canada Border Services officials to ensure that the proposed changes will be effective. The government must be open to the changes or recommendations proposed by the committee, which will surely be positive.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite on the effort he obviously has put into preparing his remarks and researching this bill.

We hear in our caucus from the member for Windsor West, who has been very concerned with matters relative to protecting our borders and of course with the goods and services that are provided to our country today. We are concerned about counterfeit, illegal and harmful goods being imported into Canada.

I understand that the Customs and Immigration Union is in favour of this bill, as is the Canadian Airports Council and the Greater Toronto Airport Authority as well. Coming from Hamilton, we have one of the busiest inland ports in Canada, relative to Toronto. When we are talking about the chain of goods as they come into our country, we have the ports in the eastern and western parts of the country for ocean-going vessels.

Does the member see, in the provisions of this bill, any impediments to the movement of those goods that would be coming, particularly to Hamilton on the Great Lakes, with some of these ocean-going vessels?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about counterfeit goods. I am not necessarily an expert in border services, but I have had to use them on a few occasions, as many of us have. Certain individuals may have displayed some behaviour that I would perhaps not call meddlesome, but which, by their nature, could frankly help the agents do a very good job.

When I looked at this bill, I had some questions. I look at the importance of the border between Canada and the United States, and the number of places where people can cross in both directions. Of course there are border services at ports and in airports, but there are countless places that need to be monitored, and it is not humanly possible to monitor all of them.

Of course, modern techniques are needed to quickly detect if certain things are illegal. It is a huge job. Some methods do exist, but when they are insufficient, someone must also physically go there, which is what I would call scientific verification. Not all merchandise, equipment and individuals can be thoroughly checked. Someone must go there, perhaps not just by chance, but based on sampling, for both merchandise and individuals. As for counterfeit goods, even greater efforts are needed.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this bill is intended to improve security at customs, but one provision bothers me. It expands the powers of customs officers to search people and their goods. Clause 10 even authorizes a customs officer to search anyone in a customs controlled area.

As I have recently travelled, this worries me. First, when we go through customs now, especially at the airport, we are insecure and we feel that the people we are dealing with are looking at us suspiciously. Customs officers often seem very unfriendly and cannot smile. They are also very brusque with the travellers. I am afraid that this will lead to abuse of authority. For example, a customs officer who does not like the way I look could deliberately check my bags, search me and send me into the back room. I have seen it happen. People wearing a hijab and Muslims are systematically sent into the back room to be searched.

Has any thought been given to the abuse of authority that could result from this bill?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like I have been travelling with the hon. member, since I have occasionally had similar impressions. I remember one time in particular when I was crossing the border with my young daughter. As was the trend in Quebec, we sometimes went to the United States to go shopping. I did not find anything and my daughter was disappointed, but we had not bought anything. When we got to the border, we were regarded as people who were trying to bring something in illegally. They really grilled my daughter with questions about her watch, since they thought it had been purchased in the U.S. They appeared to really want to find something. I do not know if my car had been picked randomly, but that happened in the past.

I do hope things have changed, however, especially when it comes to searching people. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety must ensure that agents who carry out these searches meet the standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We hope, we want, in fact we insist, that they proceed in this manner so that people's rights are respected when they are being searched.

When I was an accountant , the best way to exercise audit control was to make sure that standards were properly applied. I am sure that there will not just be one border services officer searching someone alone, hidden in a corner. I would hope that human rights will be respected. In a society like ours, this is just plain common sense, and it is necessary. I am sure that that will happen. However, individual officers may take advantage of a situation. This happens everywhere in society. The power will go to their heads, and they will force someone to answer their questions and submit to a search. That may happen, because it does happen.

I would hope that the measures that are in place to make sure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fully respected will be followed to the letter. People have to be able to trust border services officers. They are also working to protect our security. We want things to go smoothly at the border, but we also want security. It has become almost an obsession. There may be minor incidents from time to time. People want security, whether we are talking about individuals or goods. But we must not allow just anything into the country.

Earlier, members talked about counterfeit goods. If I purchase an original item worth $100, I do not want to find myself with $90 worth of phoney goods. We have to protect goods, but we have to provide just as much protection, if not more, for people, while respecting human rights.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an example for my colleague to comment on.

I have been involved with security myself. I was on in transit New York, en route from Ottawa as part of a ministerial delegation. In New York, a particularly zealous officer took my passport and asked for my U.S. green card. I told him that I did not have one and that I had never lived in the United States. He delayed me for at least 15 minutes, demanding to see a green card, which I did not have, and refusing to let me through. The minister was waiting for me on the other side because the delegation was about to board a plane for Africa. That is what I call excessive. As members of Parliament, we all have special passports. I had to tell the officers that I wanted to talk to his supervisor, or I would never have been allowed through. In the end, he took my passport, stamped it and practically threw it in my face.

I hope that that will never happen here, and that we will have enough staff to make sure that it never does. That is what happened there, and it is still happening.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague went through because I had a similar experience in the United States.

If ever we worry about what happens here, we have only to look elsewhere if we want to feel better about ourselves. I believe—I hope—that border services in Canada and Quebec are much better than what my colleague and I experienced in the United States.

In any case, this bill has to go to committee, and the minister has to provide satisfactory responses to all of the issues raised in the House.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I will be supporting the bill, and I believe the remaining members of our caucus will also.

The provisions are good. They are positive. They are a step in the right direction. However, there are a lot of overriding and overarching issues dealing with the border between Canada and the United States that certainly are not, in my view, receiving the attention they ought to be.

I cannot overstate that this is a tremendously important issue for our economy and our society. Some 87% of our exports cross into the United States, and something like $1.5 billion of trade goes back and forth every day. Many people work and travel back and forth between Canada and the United States and between the United States and Canada. It has to be done in a very efficient manner.

There are basically two overriding interests at stake here. First of all, there is the free and efficient flow of people, services and goods, both ways. Second, there are the security interests of both countries. Neither country wants to be invaded by criminals, illegal drugs, illegal guns. These are situations that have to be stopped at the border. We know full well that given the size and extent of our border there are going to be situations that happen each and every day. Again, I want to state how important this issue is.

For the last five or six years, I have been a member of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group. I believe it is a group that functions very well. We have an annual meeting, which alternates between Canada and the United States. It will actually happen in a week and a half, in Canada.

There are a number of issues, but invariably the first one that always comes up before anything else is the border issue. Whether it is the western hemisphere travel initiative, again it is the thickening of our border that has to a certain extent impeded the natural flow of trade and the natural flow of people on both sides of the border. They have the same concerns as we have, especially the northern states: Michigan, Illinois and New York State.

Of course the vast majority of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border, so this is a tremendously important issue. Anything we can do to improve the situation, as the bill does, or that helps to facilitate the movement of goods and services and people, is a positive development.

This was before Parliament as Bill C-43. I believe it passed first reading at that time. It died on the order paper, and now it has been introduced in the Senate as Bill S-2. It received debate and deliberation in the Senate.

I have been impressed by some of the amendments that have been made. I am encouraged by the work that was done in the other place, and hopefully the bill will go through the House to committee. There are a few issues that will have to be explored further, especially dealing with the minister making regulations.

I assume that the committee will also want to hear from some of the stakeholders who deal with this issue each and every day. The union that represents the customs officers, the Canadian Airports Council, the Toronto airport, many of the stakeholders have expressed general consent for the bill. I am not aware of anyone who is opposed to the bill yet. So hopefully the bill will go through the House to committee. It probably should not be that long at committee, and hopefully it will be law in the not too distant future.

The bill could be broken down basically into two general components. The first component is the expansion of the activities within a customs controlled area, which allows customs officers to search, to seize and to stop people. This is an expansion of the powers that presently exist, and again that is a positive development.

The second component of the legislation is in passage of information, that is information in all forms, whether we are talking about ships, aircraft or general conveyance. Again, it is the goal of everyone to see that goods move efficiently and quickly across the border, both ways, and that people move also, that they are not stopped at the border for unnecessary reasons. At the same time it is equally important to facilitate the border people in stopping anything like illicit drugs, guns, or people who should not be allowed to cross the border.

When we read the resolutions and the policy papers coming from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and other major business groups across Canada, this is a major issue. This is an issue that they identify regularly, and it is an issue that they want both governments to work at.

As I stated previously, this will certainly be an issue at the next meeting of the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group, which meets in Quebec a week from this weekend.

We have had a lot of situations that have arisen over the last number of years. One of course was the western hemisphere travel initiative. That has been before this House in debates, and this is an issue that was spoken about by this group. It is something we were able to delay. It is effective now for air transport, and it will be effective for vehicle transport on June 1 of this year, which is not too far away. That has been a major concern. We are hoping that when it does come into effect that sufficient people on both sides of the border will be aware of the provisions of this new regime and that we are not going to see adverse effects to our tourism and other industries because of lack of knowledge.

I hope that I am wrong, but I can see problems, especially in some of the border towns where people are used to going back and forth each day, whether to work, or for recreation or to purchase goods and services. Let us all hope that everything will work efficiently and effectively come June 1.

When the previous round for air transport came through a couple of years ago, Passport Canada was woefully unprepared to deal with the avalanche of new passport applications. But so far, everything in my experience as a member of Parliament has been positive. I think there is a bit of a delay now, but we have seen absolutely nothing like we saw in the horrendous situation of a couple of years ago. Passport Canada was telling Canadians on its website that their passports would be back in 20 days. The people would book their flights, send their passport in 40 working days before their departure date and find out the day before that they did not have their passports.

Mr. Speaker, you probably experienced the problems of many members of Parliament, especially members of Parliament who came from areas that did not have a passport office in their area.

There are a couple of matters I am going to bring forward that are not in the bill but they relate to this debate. They are issues that concern me as a member of Parliament and that I deal with each day. It is a nagging issue that deals with the stopping of people who have what I call “old criminal records”. In most instances we are dealing with records that are 20, 25 or 30 years old. Two major instances are possession of cannabis, marijuana. At that time, 30 years ago, it was a criminal offence.Right now they probably would not be given a conviction; they would probably be given a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. The other more common case would be an impaired driving conviction.

Depending on the agent who greets them at the border, this stops them from going to the United States, and vice versa. One thing I would suggest to the House is that there has to be some way of resolving these issues. There has to be a protocol developed between Canada and the United States, and a quick way of adjudicating the matter.

If someone had an impaired driving charge 30 years ago, yes, it is on his or her record. It is probably something the person is not proud of but does that really affect the security of the United States or Canada? Is there not some efficient, quick way that we could expedite that process so these people can go into the United States or, if they are in the United States, can come into Canada? That is one issue I would like to see explored and resolved.

I do not want to get into the whole gun registry debate now, but another issue is the very clear and cogent evidence of the large number of illegal handguns that come from the United States each and every year that end up in Canada, certainly some of our major cities. There has to be some way for our customs officers, the people at our borders, whether it is through technology or whatever, to identify the illegal guns that are coming north each and every year.

Of course, the Americans would certainly have other issues concerning Canadians, such as drugs. Again, one of the major issues that I hear in my role as a member of Parliament is the number of illegal handguns that come into our country from the United States each and every year.

Another issue I will bring up is the whole area of the free flow of goods, services and people each way. It requires a massive expenditure of infrastructure by our government. Two years ago I had the pleasure of taking a tour of all the customs facilities within the city of Windsor, in the tunnel. As everyone who lives there and has experienced that particular border crossing, it is woefully inadequate.

The expansion of that facility has been talked about ever since I came here eight and a half year ago. I know it is complicated and an international issue. I know there are all kinds of different versions as to the correct manner of doing it, but I would like to point out that it is something that ought to be done and done soon so that things will flow that much more freely.

As I said, I do not consider this a major bill. It provides a more efficient operation within our customs operation. It allows for a more effective pre-clearance or information flow for people. Therefore, it is a positive step in the right direction, but there are a lot of other steps that we have to take on this particular border issue.

In conclusion, I will be supporting the bill. I hope it is not in committee too long and becomes law within a very short time.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in his remarks that there were some things he would like to see changed or some concerns he had with regard to this legislation. He went on to talk about illegal guns coming into Canada through a very porous border, mainly the United States. I am wondering if he sees this bill as being helpful in that regard or is that one of the areas where he has some concern.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, some of the officers will be allowed to stop, seize and search in that particular area. It will help but, again, this is a much larger issue that requires a lot more resources and attention than it is given right now. It is still going to be inadequate but, to answer the question, yes, it will be of some assistance.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Charlottetown to elaborate on three areas.

The first area is on the search provisions and the powers that are given to customs officers and whether he thinks they will be unwieldy; and second, will the privacy issues be resolved, preserved and protected? Finally, as a former member of the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corporation board, I wonder if he could elaborate on whether there are any other alternatives to the passport requirements, such as universal identification, that we should consider rather than the passport requirement that is now law.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the components of the legislation expands the area that customs officers can search, seize and stop. As I indicated in my remarks, that is a positive development.

On the privacy issues, this is something that can be looked at in committee. I must confess that I did not examine it that closely, but as far as I can see, I do not see any overriding privacy issues that ought to concern the House. The last question on the exploration of other travel documents is extremely important. Of course, we do have the NEXUS system that is used by frequent travellers.

The enhanced driver's licence is being explored. British Columbia and Ontario are looking at that. I would hope that, at some point in our future, that will be the method that is used by all states and provinces. Eventually, we will come to the point where we will accept driver's licences with enhanced IT capabilities that will allow customs agents to plug in the driver's licence and see one's criminal history or whatever things ought to be of interest to a border agent when we are either exiting or entering this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a comment. I would like to publicly acknowledge the member for Charlottetown for speaking earlier so that I could speak next. I want to thank him for being generous in doing so. It is a busy schedule up here and I appreciate the fact that he was able to change his speaking slot so that I could speak next.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank him very much for the comments.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his pretty thorough canvas of a number of issues of concern, particularly to Canadians when dealing with this border issue. I thought he had a fairly thoughtful analysis.

There are times when I wonder whether we just end up talking to ourselves. It seems awfully difficult to get the attention of the Americans on a whole variety of issues, a number of which the hon. member has mentioned. Because we end up talking to ourselves, we end up in some fairly frustrating situations, some of which have been precipitated or highlighted by the comments of Secretary Napolitano.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that this bill will actually make a wit's worth of difference, particularly the expansion of activities with respect to the customs control area? Witness after witness said the same thing, which is that we make all of these changes and the border thickens. Things slow down and it takes more time to get over the bridge when delivering goods and services. I wonder if he could put it in the context of talking to ourselves, in effect, and being seemingly unable to get the attention of either the secretary of homeland security or the ambassador.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too, like the member, was a little taken aback by the secretary of state's comments. One would think that after all these years and discussions that the facts would certainly be known to the secretary of state, the one in the United States in charge of security.

However, to move on, the member asked an interesting question. Would this make any difference? I think it will, but it really has to be accompanied by some changes in the whole system,. There needs to be more infrastructure and more resources. If that is not there, this probably will not make a lot of difference. We can make all the laws we want, but we must have the systems, resources, proper infrastructure and proper technology, which is so important. Of course, we need the constant cooperation between the Canadian and American authorities, which is not always there now.

Again, I think that they are all part of one package. The next speaker is the member for Windsor West. I am sure that he will elaborate on the situation in Windsor and the infrastructure challenges that are in that city right now. I believe that is the busiest border in Canada.

To go back to the member's question, let us hope that the resources will increase. Let us hope that the infrastructure will improve and let us hope that this law will make a difference.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his response. He has highlighted two things: first, if no resources are put to this bill, then we really are truly wasting our time here; second, if there is no co-operation with the other side of the border, then we are also wasting our time.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on the issues whereby we expand these search and seizure areas. We certify that, presumably, trucks inspected in these areas can go right through the border without further delay, and yet at the end of the day we actually have not improved the quality of exchange between the two countries.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I do not think we are wasting our time. I hope we are not wasting our time. This legislation, as I indicated in my remarks, has several positive elements. It is a step in the right direction. It allows the customs agents and officers more powers within certain areas, and it facilitates some of the pre-clearing information that is required.

These are just two components of an overall system that basically has to become more efficient. More resources are required. More co-operation between the American and Canadian authorities is necessary. There has to be much greater use of technology. There has to be a greater emphasis on infrastructure so that things will flow smoothly.

Until those things are done, there is probably going to be a thickening border, but let us hope that the government will continue to work on it. Let us hope that there will be improvements made.

Some funds have been identified, but I am not aware of a whole lot of improvements that have been made. I still get an awful lot of complaints myself. Again, I remain somewhat cautiously optimistic. Let us hope that the situation will improve to the benefit of Canadian businesses, American businesses, and the people who live in this country and in the United States.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I, too, could share the optimism of the hon. member. I would like to hope that this will actually improve our border. I wonder if he has any concerns with respect to these passenger lists, where once people are on the bad list, they are pretty well on there forever. It is extraordinarily difficult to get—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the member there to allow the hon. member for Charlottetown a few seconds to respond.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is raised in the House quite regularly. People get on this list and there does not seem to be any quick way to get off the list. It is an international issue just as much as it is a Canada-United States issue, although I believe it is driven by the United States. Again, there has to be some protocol, some method of adjudicating whether those individuals should legitimately be on that list. If there is no reason for them to be legitimately on the list, they should be taken off.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in debate on Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, formerly Bill C-43, which was tabled in the last session of Parliament but did not make its way through the system.

Customs changes are worthy of engagement, especially at the committee level. There are elements of the bill that are very important for the men and women who are on the front line of defence for Canada with regard to our border situation. They face an extraordinary job, and the tasks at hand of balancing the issue of trade and security. They generally do a commendable job on a regular basis.

In my area, our customs officers not only protect but actually serve at times, even without the proper equipment and training. A number of years ago they had to borrow bullet-proof vests because there were not enough available. Now there are some better supports there and I am glad for that advancement.

The bill is important because it lays out the framework for our border crossings. There are 119 border crossings between Canada and the United States. Of those, 24 are international bridges and tunnels. Of those 24 international bridges and tunnels, two are privately held: one in Fort Francis and the other in Windsor, Ontario.

I will not go down that road just yet, but it is unfortunate because of that private ownership model, we pay incredible taxes. We have seen the owner-operator of that facility basically board up homes by buying them up in the adjacent area, which has led to social grief and also diminished property values at the expense of the community. That is surely a tragedy because there are other consequences.

Of the 119 crossings, approximately 29 of them have 80% of the traffic on a regular basis between our nations. When we look at the amount of volume of trade, over $1 billion a day, it is interesting to note that 40% of that happens along the Windsor-Detroit corridor. For those who are not familiar, there are four crossings that have that concentration in a two mile length of river front.

There is the Detroit-Windsor tunnel, owned by the city of Windsor on the Canadian side and the city of Detroit on the American side. They have a long-term lease agreement with Macquarie International. The CP Rail tunnel was built at approximately the same time, about 76 years ago. There are two single sleeve tunnels that are small. One has been expanded modestly but cannot accommodate the triple stackers. It can accommodate some train traffic, but a smaller amount.

Ironically, CP Rail inspection workers were basically fired from that location and moved up the rail line, which is a real travesty, because recently in a Transport Canada document I was able to obtain, it showed that during the inspection period process, 36% of the trains needed to be shopped out or failed the inspection, and there are pictures of derailments and so forth. This will be detrimental when we talk about the issues of border delays and issues around security, of which the bill has some elements.

When the United States learns of this change of policy, it will be very much concerned. We are concerned on the Canadian side because during that inspection process, we could not even get real numbers. There was also a leak of hazardous material from one of the tankers during that process. Now none of those trains will be inspected from Windsor pretty well all the way to Toronto and Montreal.

It is important to note that the trains involved in the derailment in Mississauga affected 200,000 people who had to be evacuated. Interestingly enough, that was before Katrina. That was the largest evacuation in North America up to that time. Those trains came out of Windsor, so we are really concerned about rail safety operations.

Past the CP Rail facility there is the Ambassador Bridge, which is owned by a private American citizen. Once again, this facility has the vast majority of truck and vehicle border crossings in this country. It has the highest fares too over most areas. It is double what the Blue Water Bridge charges in Sarnia. Then past that, there is the Detroit-Windsor truck ferry service, which is owned by a private American operator. It transports hazardous materials between our countries. Ironically, that operator has been recognized by the department of homeland security and has actually received grants because of its safe operation.

Interestingly enough, the owner of the Ambassador Bridge is grandfathered, so we pay for his customs officers. This is about the customs issues in the bill. Canadian taxpayers pay for that customs facility. Ironically, the hazardous material ferry operator actually had to go to court and finally settled with the federal government and has to pay for some of the services, inconsistent services in many respects, as the bridge has taken priority.

One of the good things we are dealing with in this bill is the ability to transfer information in advance for some vehicles, drivers and the trade merchandise so that it can be expedited through the system. It is an important improvement to diminish lineups and improve productivity.

There has been some good debate on these issues and whether this makes a difference. However, sadly enough, when there is a lack of staffing at the actual border facilities then we have a significant problem. We could have all the best products and policies in place and we could provide those powers but if we do not have the operators in place to do the work, then we defeat the whole purpose and we further frustrate those elements of commerce. This bill has to get to committee so we can study it more.

More economic development is looking at the border. Many operations have to decide whether they want to reinvest, especially in the manufacturing belt in Ontario and Quebec, which has been extremely vulnerable. The policy of artificially inflating the Canadian dollar because of an addiction to oil and gas as a revenue stream has really eaten away that base.

On top of that, as we have the thickening of the Canada-U.S. border, elements of business are questioning whether they should open up a plant in Ontario, in Indiana or somewhere else. The comments made by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano are really disturbing. They further heighten the issue of the border and are part of, I believe, a politically motivated movement to turn the Canada-U.S. border into one which is similar to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Public policy affects some of these things and how we respond to them. The imagery is being created. I would point out that in my region of Windsor-Detroit, there are gunboats on the Detroit River and the Great Lakes, because of a treaty that the Liberals allowed to move forward, and which the Conservatives have supported. U.S. Coast Guard vessels have autocannons on them that fire 600 bullets a minute. I am not sure what type of threat would come from Canada that would require 600 bullets a minute, but those are the coast guard vessels that are actually operating along the border.

We are very fortunate to have defeated a proposal to allow 40 different testing zones for firing ranges on the Great Lakes. Interestingly enough, I made a submission against that and the government made a submission. However, it made its submission against that two days after the deadline, so it was not even given actual consideration. The government basically allowed this process to go forward without any type of input. However, we were able to defeat that with some progressive forces, including hunters and fishers who are concerned about the firing ranges, and also environmental groups because the bullets have lead casings.

Blackhawk helicopters have been added to the area, drone planes, security cameras, and spy towers that oversee the area. We are seeing the militarization of the border and it is becoming more like the Mexican-U.S. border versus what it really is, a trade facilitator, which is the model we need to deal with. As the thickening of the border happens and businesses decide to avoid the border altogether, it will erode our economic base if we do not take measures like this.

One of the things that this bill does is it provides regulations to have timeframes and so forth for information coming forth on the border. It can increase productivity by having those practices in place. That is the advance commercial information component of this bill. That will actually allow CBSA to see the information not only from the point of the original supplier but it will also allow it to see the information about the contents and the driver. It is going to facilitate things right across the border.

It is very important that we get that change. It is one of the most important things we can do because, as I have mentioned, all these other barriers are being put in place. It might seem like a small thing in some respects, but at least it is a counterbalance to what is happening.

For example, with the implementation of the western hemisphere travel initiative, anyone who wants to get into the United States, including Americans who have left the United States, will need a passport. Luckily, some states have moved forward on the advanced driver's licence. There is going to be confusion.

All these things are taking place at a time when there is a lot of confusion. We need to put in some policies that are going to help to counterbalance for trade purposes. The WHTI will come into effect and there will be other elements. It is going to thicken the border. We just do not have the needed infrastructure at some of our crossings.

I want to talk about what is happening at the Windsor-Detroit crossing because the bill would allow customs agents in customs controlled areas to do further interventions. There will be greater accountability of the activity of those interventions at the plaza locations. Hopefully there will be better procedures so that when those problems do occur, there will be ways to deal with them that are a little more proper in terms of the way the areas are laid out. That is important. The older facilities do not have the space to pull over certain trucks, to question people, and so forth. If they cannot clear that out, it creates further congestion, back-ups and delays. It defeats the whole purpose of some of the measures we are putting in place here.

What is happening in the Windsor-Detroit corridor is very important, two miles west of the current Ambassador Bridge, and it would extend from four to five crossings within four kilometres. A new publicly owned bridge is going to span the Detroit River and create some redundancy in the system. If there were a problem with one of the current infrastructures, there would be an additional site located there.

The plaza development is very important, because it creates the ability to manoeuvre around new issues such as this. When we are looking at new policies and ways to enforce border security, that can be designed into the actual plaza. I am hoping to see from the designs and the government development of this some flexibility for those plazas for the future, so that there can be some reaction if there is implementation of other measures from the United States.

The United States has added a whole series of new procedures which we would not have dreamt of a number of years ago. Recently with the Bioterrorism Act, a Chilean peach from the 1980s suddenly became a security risk and threat in the year 2000. It led to additional paperwork for commercial trucks carrying fruits and vegetables into the United States. It just creates productivity loss and complications in crossing the border.

A series of these things has been implemented across the table unilaterally, often not even by the political heads but by the departments, such as the Department of Homeland Security and others that are emboldened to do these things. It creates a real problem for us.

I mentioned before about the advance pass information. It is important in many respects, not only in terms of the economic commerce that I am talking about, but also the safety and security of the general public and the men and women who work at the border plazas. Whether we like it or not, the reality is that there are illegal goods, services and materials on a routine basis not just going from Canada to the United States, but also coming from the United States to Canada. Just as our auto industry is integrated with that in the United States, ironically, sometimes there is an integrated criminal activity base for drugs and weapons that go back and forth at the border.

CEUDA, the customs and excise union, drew up what is called the Northgate report. This is a really good report that lays out some of the challenges being faced by the officers at the border. It offers some suggestions.

CEUDA did a survey. I want to go through some of the questions asked. Some individuals believe that when people come to Canada there is no problem, but that is not true. We have to vet these things. That is why the officers need these extra powers. One of the questions on the survey was:

Have Officers at your LAND BORDER CROSSING ever found themselves dealing with someone at Secondary they discovered was considered Armed and Dangerous after searching CPIC [their computer system] but was not cautioned as such either by PALS [their operating system] or when the traveller was otherwise referred?

Thirty of the respondents indicated yes. That is high considering that individuals had been pushed into secondary inspection to begin with and there had already been some contact.

Another question was:

Have Officers at your LAND BORDER CROSSING released a known Armed & Dangerous person up the road in keeping with CBSA's Release and Notify Policy?

Eighteen respondents said yes, ninety-three said no, and eight had no answer.

We know that we have to change some of these policies so people are not set free. That is critical for public safety.

In the Windsor-Detroit area, a couple of peculiar cases came up that really prompted my interest in this legislation.

A Detroit police officer came over to Canada and was pulled over for secondary inspection. He had hid his gun and accidentally shot himself in the knee. He lost his job in the U.S. but was given no penalty here.

These are important things that we need to look at.

A more extreme case occurred on January 7 at an Alberta crossing, where 10 semi-automatic handguns, including one semi-automatic machine pistol, 11 high-capacity magazines and 300 rounds of ammunition were seized. An Edmonton resident was smuggling these items back and forth across the border.

These types of situations are dealt with on a regular basis. The infrastructure needs to be set up properly so we can deal with these kinds of things. We also need to have the powers in the legislation to deal with them.

I want to touch on something that is incredibly important and that is the issue of United States' confidence in Canada with respect to security issues. As we go through the bill we will see some recurring elements. We heard some debate about this earlier.

Some wonder whether the bill will really make a difference because the U.S. is just going to ignore stuff anyway. I think the bill would make a difference because we are dealing with some of the operations on the Canadian side that we can control.

We need to do better with respect to the things that we can control. We need to provide more resources. If our border communities do not get the infrastructure money they need as well as the policies to go with it, then we are doomed for failure.

This summer, we will be moving to armed officers as part of the regular procedure, and therefore, students will not be used to fill those positions as they have in the past. The government will not be filling these positions. This summer we will not have the staffing component that we had before. This will create greater lineups and greater problems. This will defeat the purpose. This has to come hand in glove, resources and procedure.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member on his speech. It was certainly a tour de force. I was very impressed that he spoke for 20 minutes and took only two breaths. He was very able in his analysis of the border. Certainly his references to the militarization of the Canada-U.S. border is information that really none of us would like to hear, but it is true and it is quite regrettable.

I want to ask a question with respect to the thickening of the border and its impact on economic development. Certainly all these non-tariff barriers that seem to be getting erected by the American government as goods go over the border are impediments to productivity, impediments to proper economic relationships, and in some measure, hurt the American economy far more than the Canadian economy.

I think it is an observable fact that the American economy is having more difficulties with the current recession than are we, and each time it puts up one of these non-tariff barriers it impairs its own economy, its own productivity, and it has a detrimental effect on us as well

I would be interested in the hon. member's comments on the ironic effect of the thickening of the border and these non-tariff barriers.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have led to this moment, time and place where we have seen the American border thickening. I would point back to one of the most significant changing points. In 2002, I was at the Canadian embassy in Washington and the ambassador was there. We had just learned that the United States was going to bring in the NSEERS program, which was a registry process to fingerprint and photograph non-Canadian entries from Canada, but also Canadian entries from a series of countries that they considered not secure or not worthy of actual proper processing.

Ironically we have citizens from some of those countries who have been here in Canada for 30 years and in my community where doctors and nurses go into the United States every single day and save the lives of Americans and are part of their vibrant community.

Sadly enough, the prime minister at that time never objected to that. Since then, the US-VISIT program has been instituted and we have eroded those relationships. To me, it goes back as far as that. It hurts their society, but also, this country has to speak from one voice, that every single Canadian is vetted and they should be treated the same. Until we do that, we will still have problems.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking through the bill clause by clause, and I am a little concerned. I would like to get the member's comments on clause 2 of the bill, which gives the minister the power to directly authorize access to a customs-controlled area by a person. This is a new power given to the minister. It was previously regulated that the minister had this power.

I am a bit concerned that we would give a minister of the Crown that authority and that power. I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on that particular clause of the bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a concern. We will have to see whether there is an intent to move some more prescriptive elements of the bill as to what those situations are and how they would evolve or whether it is going to be through regulation.

Giving the ministers unvetted power like that can be very difficult, especially if it becomes more of a micro-management aspect of the bill. We have seen the same policy under immigration and a few other different elements where we have given those ministers power.

To my Liberal colleague, I would say that he has been doing unilaterally that for the Conservative Party in the House of Commons, so we will certainly be looking forward to seeing how they might want to rein that in at committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the member raised the issue of Mississauga in his speech yet again, I think he should move to Mississauga. I would love to have him.

The derailment raises some interesting questions, but I wonder if the member would care to elaborate further on the issue of Canadians who work in the United States. This has come up many times in this place as it relates to pension matters, as it relates to their facility to be able to cross the border on a timely basis, and what it really means in terms of facilitating this kind of activity in which there is a win-win. Maybe the member wants to sing the praises of people who do work across the border.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually used to work at Community Living Mississauga, so I am a former Mississauga worker and wish all those at Community Living Mississauga all the best. I have relatives there as well. I point to that derailment because it is so real.

I thank the member for talking about the issues of those who work in the United States. There are so many of them over there, along the border, that it is incredible. It goes both ways. We have Americans working in Canada as well. That is part of the strength of our social and cultural relationships and it is good for business as well.

One of the saddest things is that, despite corporate tax cuts that the government has given, it has not taken up the movement of its own member, the member for Essex, on the social security bill.

This was done under the Paul Martin administration, where the government taxed U.S. social security recipients resident in Canada at a different level than before. There have been many promises on the Conservative side, but the government has not even moved on the private member's bill of one of its members and we have the continued taxation of U.S. social security recipients in Canada.

The reality is that we are going to continue, hopefully, to have some of those relationships, because it is not just about the employment that takes place. It also about the research and development that we share among us.

As a good example, today we saw that Canada is losing one of its top scientists to Florida, because the United States has attracted him with the Obama administration's intent to have research and training move forward, versus the Canadian government here. However, there will still be some connection with Montreal.

These are important aspects not only in terms of the hard economy that we think of, such as automotive in my community, but it is also related to research and development as well as other types of problem-solving around social issues.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Windsor West if he could elaborate on his feelings about the discretion involved with secondary searches.

It seems every time I cross the border, whether I am on my own or with my three children, I always draw the long straw for the secondary search, and I have yet to be able to cross through a metal detector with my shoes on.

Does he feel that these requirements are necessary, and could he elaborate on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue, and I was going to make some comment but I will not. If the member is being pulled over so often, what she might do is try to find out whether something is popping up on her record. It is unusual to have that type of situation.

I do not know whether the member is being cross-referenced with someone else. The member does not look suspicious to me, and I am sure her children do not look suspicious either.

However, the member brings up a very interesting point. It does happen on our Canadian side too. I often talk to different people who are entering the United States. I think it is one of the reasons we should institute a border czar on both sides, to work together on certain things.

It is ironic that we have all this material coming in from the ports that is never screened at all. It gets into our country. Some of its poisonous material, whether it be toys or food. Only 4% is checked.

Meanwhile, at our land border crossings, they pull over a minivan with a couple of parents and kids and send it through twice the security. Therefore, I think it is a valid point.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is enough time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville has the floor.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already asked this question today but, unfortunately, only a partial answer was given.

When we go to the airport, we should be welcomed with a smile at customs and we should feel that the officers will not abuse their powers.

Can my colleague indicate how we can be assured that this bill will not result in the abuse of power?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Nothing changes, Mr. Speaker. If an employee of CBSA is acting inappropriately, someone should approach the supervisor. None that changes in this particular bill, because there is nothing at this point that has been proposed for that.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this bill which addresses the administration of customs.

In recent years, as the aftermath of 9/11, there has been a very marked tightening of customs security. There is at the same time an awareness that a balance must be struck between security and the need for proper service and for avoiding problems because of the way things are being done. If all the priority is given to security alone, the end result may be hindrance of the border-crossing mechanisms.

The border between Canada and the U.S. is a very long one. Obviously it can be crossed by road, or even just on foot, but it can also be crossed in a plane. This bill before us is an attempt to remedy the situation. The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill because we feel that the measures it contains are appropriate. Time will tell whether they actually succeed in improving the situation on any ongoing basis, but the bill is evidence of good will and we hope it will be passed.

Primarily, though, this bill is designed to provide Canada Border Services Agency officers with the information, tools and flexibility they need to identify threats and prevent criminal activity, while ensuring that legitimate goods and travellers can cross the border efficiently. Under the amendments that have been announced, all businesses that are part of the import chain are required to provide the Canada Border Services Agency with electronic data on their shipments before the goods reach Canada.

In the last few years, particularly with the cooperation of the U.S., a system was put in place to ensure security within the companies themselves. Care is taken to ensure that the products are protected and isolated, and also that shipping does not reopen to question their seal or their security when handled, when additions are made to them, or when they are processed. This is what these amendments reflect.

With this advance electronic information on transportation, the Canada Border Services Agency will be able to make better decisions about admitting goods and analyzing the risks they pose to Canadians and Quebeckers. We see this as a positive measure. Of course, we have to ensure that implementing this electronic system will not interfere with existing laws and regulations, such as those governing privacy. However, in the transportation sector, this kind of situation occurs infrequently, and we have not seen any such complications in the existing act.

Other changes will allow the Canada Border Services Agency to fully establish customs controlled areas. These areas will be specific territories, legal entities. When an individual arrives at an airport, customs officers will have the authority to exercise the rights set out in the act. This will clarify notions that are set out in the existing act but that do not enable customs officers to take appropriate action. That is what this bill seeks to fix. Officers will enjoy greater freedom to examine goods and question and search people, regardless of where they are in these areas, not just at exit points, as the current law states. The current law does not allow officers to search individuals until they have left the customs controlled area. People exhibit all kinds of behaviours within the areas themselves, and in the past, situations have arisen that may have required officers to intervene, but they could not. This bill would resolve that problem.

At first sight, the bill seems adequate, but an in-depth review and close questioning of Canada Border Services Agency inspectors and government officials will be necessary. As I said at the start, we must not nitpick to the point where we would be creating a situation more complicated than the one we already have. What we need is a fluid border for land and marine crossings but also for the movement of people and goods by air.

That will be the primary concern of the Bloc Quebecois when the bill goes through detailed analysis in committee. That is why we will want to hear witnesses from the government agency and from companies that do transborder trade and want decent services. We can also expect that organizations advocating privacy protection and individual rights will want to make sure that the legislation does not complicate the situation on the Canadian side and does not undermine citizens' rights.

The bill was introduced on January 29, 2009 by the Conservative leader in the Senate and later sent to this House. We do not think that the introduction of bills first in the Senate which then sends them to this place is the best way to do things. It is always better to introduce bills first in the elected House of Parliament instead of the other chamber, where members are not elected. This way of proceeding should be changed to ensure the government does not use it to get around the urgency of certain issues or to introduce through the back door measures it does not want to introduce directly.

This bill is identical to the one introduced on December 2, 2008 and to Bill C-43, which was introduced on February 15, 2008 during the second session of the 39th Parliament. Both these bills died on the order paper. We can therefore understand how anxious the Canada Border Services Agency is to have the act finally amended. The Bloc will cooperate on passing the bill and will support it at second reading by not prolonging the debate. However, it will also make sure that the committee hears witnesses and considers the bill in a timely manner.

Bill S-2 amends the Customs Act to clarify certain provisions of the French version of the act and to make technical amendments to others. We felt it was important to correct these provisions. Often, bills are initially drafted in English, and there are regularly problems with the translation, which can lead to misinterpretation of the act once it comes into effect. These things must be corrected. The current bill makes much-needed improvements and should be passed as soon as possible.

The bill also imposes additional requirements in customs controlled areas, grants the minister the power to authorize entry, amends provisions concerning the determination of value for duty and modifies advance commercial reporting requirements. The search powers of customs officers are expanded to include individuals and their goods that are in or are leaving a customs controlled area. The current Customs Act does not allow officers to go and get someone who refuses to be searched and stays in the buffer zone. This legal vacuum causes unacceptable situations and needs to be addressed.

The bill also provides that regulations may be enacted that describe the time frame and manner in which information about passengers may be provided by prescribed persons. This is the whole issue of personal information that I was talking about earlier. With regard to searches, we must ensure that customs officers do not have undue authority and that the rights of Canadian citizens and foreign travellers are properly protected.

The current Customs Act was passed in 1986 and is the result of the total revamping of the 1867 act. This shows that the customs sector has been around for a very long time. When Canada was created, a customs service was established and has evolved over the years. The pace of change seems to be accelerating, driven by the arrival of new electronic technologies that can be used both to improve the system, but also by people who want to bring illegal goods into Canada. In that regard, it is very important to ensure that our technologies are up to date in order to detect potential inadvertent errors or malicious acts.

As we have heard, since 1986, the act has been amended continuously in response to free trade and related international agreements, and to fine-tune international trade measures.

Again recently, we have seen how certain countries can also use customs legislation to practice a form of protectionism. We hope that is not the case at this time and that Canada does not anticipate that kind of situation. In the past, the fluidity of the border between Canada and the U.S. has benefited Canada and particularly Quebec. We also know, however, that since the establishment of free trade agreements that are casting the net wider in light of globalization, we are seeing increased competition. We must ensure that Canadian products are imported and exported properly. The same is true when it comes to people crossing our borders, and that is how we must look at this bill.

I will elaborate on this.

Clause 2 of the bill removes the authorization-by-regulation requirement by which the minister currently approves access to a customs controlled area by a person.

There will be no need for a regulation to allow that. It will be possible to do so directly under the act. The minister will be able to grant that access directly.

Clause 3 of the Bill removes an exemption that applied to persons boarding a flight to a destination outside of Canada who were leaving a customs controlled area. By the removal of this exemption, such persons are obligated to present and identify themselves to an officer and to report any goods obtained in the area and answer questions asked by an officer.

We will examine closely what this means in order to avoid administrative duplication, for example. It will be important to verify such concerns.

Clause 4 amends the regulation-making powers of the Governor in Council to include regulations prescribing the persons or classes of persons who may be granted access to customs controlled areas and the manner in which a person must present himself or herself upon leaving, or while in, a customs controlled area.

Therefore, these are fairly technical points that are being amended in order to give customs officers more latitude as well as the ability to act more quickly and efficiently within customs controlled areas.

Clause 7 amends the methods available to adjust the transaction value of the goods being imported when the vendor receives a benefit from a subsequent sale... This may lead to higher valuations and therefore higher duties being paid by importers.

They must try to state the real value of the goods to ensure that we do not open ourselves to the black market or to a market that does not reflect the true value of the good.

Clause 11 [amends the bill] so that a customs officer is authorized to conduct a non-intrusive examination of goods in the custody or possession of a person in or leaving a customs controlled area, in accordance with the regulations.

After seeing how people often behave in customs, it is important that, on occasion, action be taken to allow the non-intrusive examination of goods that is not detrimental to the individual and that does not create an undesirable situation for the person concerned.

We could say that this bill makes the connection between the customs provisions that impose duty and tariffs on importers and the security measures in various other laws.

The proposed amendments to the method of calculating the value of imported goods could reduce the number of disputed duty calculations. We hope that the number of disputes will decrease and that border traffic will flow more freely but with adequate control.

It is also thought that revenue from duties could increase if the value of goods imported is more likely to be adjusted upward as a result of the proposed changes to the methods for determining customs value. There is no point in pretending that the changes will probably result in additional revenue for the government because they will be taxed on the real value of the goods much more than is done at present.

The purpose of the provisions of the bill that require information to be provided in advance is to improve the risk assessment of goods at the border. In the past, particularly with the implementation of what is called C-TPAT, an American law to ensure oversight of what is happens in factories, we have seen that there is no rechecking done at each stage during transport. We hope that there could be this new type of facility for the new powers granted. Combined with the creation of the broader search power for officers in customs controlled areas, this measure could reduce the number of dangerous counterfeit products entering Canada through customs controlled areas.

We have seen in the past that goods entering Canada were in fact illegal copies that infringed rights and patents that had been paid for, for example, but most importantly they were goods that could have negative impacts on health and that could even affect children’s health. As well, there are people who travel and may bring back samples of products. We also want to ensure that there is less and less counterfeiting occurring, to eliminate the problem at the source rather than having this unacceptable situation.

We are also told that border services officers may now search persons only when they leave controlled areas. In future, it will be possible to do that inside the controlled area itself, and this will be easier because we know that, at present, the officer questions people as they leave and can even conduct a search if the officer thinks it necessary.

In the new scenario, officers will be able to ask the same kinds of questions inside the controlled area, and if there are reasonable grounds, they will be able to conduct a search. They will be given adequate training and people who enter a controlled area will be informed of the possibility of a search. They would have notice. So we see the bill as a whole and the perspective the minister wishes to take.

I hope that this bill will reflect a different philosophy from the one we see at present in the government’s approach, for example in connection with Mr. Abdelrazik's return to Canada. He is a Canadian citizen who is currently at the embassy in Khartoum and wants to return here. There is an international convention that allows him to return to his country, even if he is on a UN no-fly list.

The Canadian government is currently refusing to apply the agreement that it signed. The government behaves this way in regard to a symbolic matter, but we certainly hope it does not when it comes to the implementation of an actual piece of legislation, such as the one we will be voting on with Bill S-2. If this kind of behaviour turns up in other similar cases, if it occurs in the enforcement of a law, if the bill we are voting on allows this sort of thing, I think these kinds of excesses would be totally unacceptable. That is why the committee must ensure that the bill respects with all individual rights.

I invite all groups that want to make presentations to do so in committee. When the bill comes back to us at report stage and at third reading, all the necessary changes will have been made to ensure that customs officers can do their jobs more effectively and satisfactorily and speed up border crossings for airlines, while at the same time showing respect for the citizens who are being processed, both Canadians and people from abroad who are visiting us.

Over the last few years, there has been a major drop in tourism to Canada. Every time we make a decision about customs, we should ensure that we are not adding another obstacle, as we did to some extent by increasing the cost of passports.

The Americans now require passports of people even when they are using a land crossing and we have seen the additional costs involved. This will probably cause some American families interested in vacationing in Canada to go instead to another American state. For a family of four or five, that is an additional cost that could equal the cost of two, three or even four vacation days. As a result, some will prefer to stay in the United States and spend their money there, even though we were trying to create a free trade area in which everyone would benefit from more exchanges.

When we pass bills like S-2, we will have to adopt a perspective and take an approach that avoids this kind of complications. We will also have to look into whether the situation will be different at small airports and large airports. We should ensure as well that the customs controlled areas that are created—I am thinking of small airports like those in Gatineau or Rivière-du-Loup where there are no customs services as such—do not require additional security services to be established that are not necessary and currently not required.

We will have to pay particular attention to this if we want to have a bill that facilitates the flow of people rather than impeding it.

I will conclude on that note and encourage the House to pass this bill as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)