Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2001

Health

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, there is no more smallpox vaccine to be purchased in the world. Canada has a stockpile of 380,000 doses. Modern technology allows us to dilute that to vaccinate more people, but no one else in the world can buy more vaccine because it does not exist.

There are vaccines being developed now. Many countries are moving to speed up the development of those vaccines. It may be that as a matter of prudence in the very unlikely event it may be needed, that countries should buy more of that when it is available. That is something we are looking at. The member should know it does not exist at this moment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the member which has to do with the stringency with which he would like to pursue the issue of terrorism in Canada and Canada becoming the venue or the springboard for these unsavoury people to launch themselves into another country.

I wonder if the hon. member could talk about that in some detail. He spent a lot of time talking about other things. In his response to my earlier question he said that we had all those safeguards now.

Does the hon. member know that some 27,000 of these people have gotten lost somewhere and we do not know where they are? Does he also know that people in Fort McMurray were discovered to have not one but a list of criminal offences against them. Does he know that these people were able to find refuge in Canada when they should not have had refuge in Canada and should not have been considered to be refugees? They should not have qualified but nothing was done.

Does the hon. member know why this is happening? Is it because the government is not doing what it can do or is it because the legislation is wrong? If that is the case, why is C-36 not before the House to do some of the things we are talking about?

Our motion specifically deals with a new way of looking at protecting our country and making it safe from terrorists coming into this country in the first place.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked this whole question previously, I mentioned that the officials of the department were looking into a lot of these aspects.

To get specifically to his question, there is no doubt that over many years there have been some claimants who did not show up for their hearings or whatever. Some may have left the country but we are not sure.

However Bill C-11 was designed to deal with some of these issues. As members know, when we had our parliamentary commission on Bill C-11, it was going to prevent many of these things. In other words, a lot of people who managed to get in by the back door did not take the front door. We are going to speed up the process in the future with Bill C-11, which will prevent a lot of people from exploiting the system by coming in through the back door.

A lot of the measures proposed by the member are already in existence. They will be even better under Bill C-11. It is just a question of time before we get all the aspects together and then we will be able to do a better job.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member appeared to acknowledge the fact that the majority of refugee claimants coming into Canada are from the United States. Does he think it is appropriate for Canada to give refugee consideration to people coming from the United States when they are already in a country known to be a safe haven?

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent suggestion by the hon. member regarding the statistic I gave that 40% of refugee claimants in Canada came from the United States. Maybe we should look into that. Maybe some kind of arrangement could be made whereby if someone is coming from the United States they can claim their status there and not here.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.

The heightened anxiety and concern that Canadians have been feeling at the threat of terrorism is natural at this time, especially since we know what has been happening in the United States can virtually happen anywhere.

Our citizens need to know their government is taking the necessary legislative steps to combat international terrorism. With the introduction of the comprehensive anti-terrorism bill last week some of these concerns have been addressed. However much work remains to be done, particularly in the area of immigration and border control.

So far the government has attempted to brush off suggestions that we have a terrorist problem by pointing to the fact that none of the September 11 hijackers appear to have significant Canadian connections. However this argument ignores the fact that we have known for years that Canada has a major problem with terrorists using our country as a base for their activities abroad. This is a fact stated in the June 2000 CSIS report, in reports from national defence and by officials representing American intelligence agencies, the FBI and the CIA.

One can only ask why these terrorists would want to attack Canadian locations when they can safely use Canada as a staging point for their international criminal operations.

As friends and allies, we also owe our American neighbours some measure of protection from security risks beginning in Canada. There is no question that the Americans are very concerned about who is entering from their northern border, and justifiably so. They have already tripled the number of agents patrolling the Canadian-American border, a move that indicates they are extremely concerned about what measures we have or rather do not have in place on our side of the border.

The B.C. premier, Gordon Campbell, in a move supported by all other premiers but two, has called for a serious discussion with the United States about a continental perimeter that would protect the security interests of both countries and allow for the free movement of people and trade between them. The idea of harmonizing our laws and anti-terrorism operations is necessary if we are to continue a positive relationship with our most important trading partner.

The Liberal government's response so far on this issue has been to hide behind arguments that harmonizing immigration and refugee laws would be an infringement on our sovereignty and the core values of Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is trying to define Canadian by what is not American. However we have to think beyond this narrow scope and define our nation on our own terms. We must work together with all western leaders, linking our arms with a common strategy and with a common goal of defeating terrorism, not by simplistically defining our terrain with a line drawn in the sand.

For years it has been obvious to Canadians, it certainly has been obvious to members of the Canadian Alliance caucus, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had no serious thoughts of addressing the issue of terrorists entering and remaining in Canada via the refugee determination system.

A January 1999 report of a special senate committee on security and intelligence stated what most Canadian already know, that there are several indications that serious problems with our refugee determination system exist. Among the serious problems reported were the number of claimants who disappear, the perception that our system is leaky and our enforcement system is overwhelmed and the perception that it is in the claimant's interest not to comply with our immigration rules, terms and conditions. Indeed, what the report states is that it is in the interests of claimant's to use criminal procedures to get into our country.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has done nothing to enhance training for customs officers. She has done nothing to give the appropriate resources to law enforcement officials. She has done nothing to detain refugee claimants who cannot prove their identities. She has failed to promptly deport refugee claimants who break the law in Canada.

The one thing the minister has done is she has attempted to deflect criticism from Canada's ridiculously open system by calling those who have constructive suggestions on how the system can be improved, anti-immigrant. It is statements like these that desperately demonstrate the minister's failure to carry out her responsibilities.

After years of inaction, last week she finally announced new, allegedly fraud proof identity cards for landed immigrants to be implemented next year. Unfortunately, terrorism and immigration experts already consider these new cards obsolete as they are not likely to pose any problem for terrorists intending to forge or reproduce them. The cards issued will not contain the security features, such as imbedded fingerprints already found on the U.S. green card, or iris identification.

Publicly available polling indicates Canadians recognize that these tracking features are necessary even if the minister and her department do not.

Beyond tracking capabilities, we must also have the means to detain those who wish to criminally abuse our refugee and immigration systems, those who arrive at our shores without proper documentation every year. Most, if not all, of the terrorists who have entered the country have done so by criminally using our generous refugee system. This was confirmed officially when the RCMP told a conference on October 17 that the modus operandi of all international terrorists entering Canada was, first, to claim refugee status and then, to move on to obtain welfare and medical benefits before turning to crime to boost their income.

How the minister can continue to deny this fact in light of such evidence remains a great mystery to me. Certainly she has the evidence of her own security agencies, including the RCMP, to tell her very clearly that she has a problem and that the steps she is taking are not adequate?

In conclusion, I would call on all members of the House today to recognize that significant improvements must immediately be made in terms of our border laws by voting in favour of the motion.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this afternoon to discuss customs and immigration issues. Canada has an obligation to encourage immigration. Having been given what we have in Canada it is only right to welcome refugees and immigrants to our country.

Most Canadians are descended from immigrants. My grandparents on my father's side came from Scandinavia. They looked for a country where they could have new opportunities. They looked at Canada and decided to come here. My mother decided in the 1950s that she would like to come to Canada. She emigrated from Scotland. She came here as a midwife and became a nurse. We all have immigration in our history.

If we are to have immigration we have an obligation to do a good job. I will ask a couple of questions this afternoon about whether we are doing a good job with our immigration policies. First, if we think we are doing a good job, could we not ask people in the general public what they think of our immigration policies? If we went to the public I am sure people would say our immigration policies are complicated and difficult to understand and that no one knows what the rules are.

People do come here. Last year 225,000 people tried to immigrate to Canada, 35,000 of whom claimed refugee status. People come here to stay because it is a good place to live and a safe place to live. We would like to keep it that way. I will take a few minutes to look at the present legislation to see if it would make Canada a safe place to live.

Bill C-11 has been introduced and is going through the process of becoming legislation. It seems well intentioned. My mother has a Scottish saying that members may be familiar with. She says the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This could be the government's statement of purpose on immigration legislation.

Bill C-11 tries to make the system workable but the government refuses to provide enough staff to make it workable. Bill C-11 tries to speed up refugee processing, or at least as the public sees it. The government's target includes referring refugees to the Immigration and Refugee Board within three days. However its processing time continues to be 90 days, the same as it has always been.

The bill does not address issues like out of date health standards or accountability of appointments, those of citizenship judges in particular. However the real problem with the immigration legislation is the problem at the heart of the Liberal government: it has no accountability.

Canadians are more concerned about the application of the present law than about having new laws. If people can come here, do damage and try to destroy the country, it justifiably causes fear among Canadians about what they may be doing. Montreal detective Claude Paquette said our porous immigration laws have turned Canada into “a Club Med for terrorists”. CSIS head Ward Elcock has said that with perhaps the singular exception of the United States there are more international terrorist groups active in Canada than in any other country. This is a poor place to be second.

Yesterday I rode in a taxi from the airport with a young gentleman who was concerned about the things going on around the world. He was from the Middle East. He said he came to Canada to have peace, not to have the dangers of that world come here. Canadians want to be safe.

Canadians are concerned that the system has been corrupted. We need to look at some of the major concerns Canadians have about failed political candidates being given appointments and jobs in the immigration system, a system in which immigration lawyers stand to make large amounts of money from people who cannot afford it, a system in which corrupt immigration advisers often try to take people's money away before they get to Canada.

To deal with these problems the Canadian Alliance has some suggestions. First, we need to take a serious look at a common perimeter security system with the United States. This is a simple and real opportunity to improve security for both Canadians and Americans. Simply put, it would increase security at our entry points. People cannot swim to this country. They come in through airports and the ports where our ships dock. We need a common perimeter security system.

Why do we need a perimeter security system? We need it for a couple of reasons. First, we need it for our own security and safety. This is the first duty of the federal government. Second, the United States has announced it will be requiring everyone leaving and entering that country to register when they do so. This will be done for several reasons. It will be done partly as a trade restriction, something we do not particularly need.

A couple of weeks ago one of the senators from North Dakota began using the security issue to try again to restrict agricultural products coming into the United States. Some of their bureaucrats and politicians are trying to use the issue to restrict things like softwood lumber and the ability of Canadians to work in the United States. We need to be aware that the United States is concerned about its own security. If we do not have a secure perimeter and cannot be trusted at our borders we will not be able to get through the U.S. border easily.

We have a second suggestion for the government. It should detain refugee claimants until it has properly identified them. That is common sense. We cannot simply let people go and collect their baggage when they arrive at and leave our airports. The Canadian people do not realize how the system is operating right now or they would be rising up and criticizing it.

Arrivals need to have verifiable documentation so the proper checks can be done. It is easy to do security and background checks on people who have the correct documentation. However those without verifiable documentation or who are questionable should be detained until we know whether they are safe. If they prove not to be safe they should be deported. Canadians do not find that unreasonable.

Here are some examples where stricter standards should have been applied. A convicted PLO terrorist lied to get into Canada. He currently lives in Brantford, Ontario, and has lived there since 1987. He is a failed refugee claimant but continues to avoid deportation through court appeals. If the government cannot deport a terrorist, whom can it deport?

A Toronto man who works at a grocery store has been positively linked to Osama bin Laden. He has been identified as a high ranking member of the Islamic terrorist group al-Jihad.

Ahmed Ressam, a failed refugee claimant, assembled bomb material in Burnaby, B.C., and tried to get into the United States. While he was fighting the Canadian refugee process it was discovered he was allowed to travel abroad for more terrorist training before returning to Canada.

A former terrorist wanted for questioning by the FBI for assisting in the bombing of an Egyptian embassy in the late 1980s is living in Canada.

How many other terrorists are hiding in Canada? One of the biggest concerns of Canadians is that the present inadequate screening system cannot tell them that.

One of the more bizarre examples of this occurred on October 7 when a plane arrived at Toronto's Pearson airport with an estimated 30 to 40 refugees from Pakistan and Afghanistan who had come through Germany, a safe third country. These people, I would suggest, were not refugees but rather immigrants. They were processed and released into the general public and immigration officials lost them. Where are they? More important, who are they? People cannot just disappear.

Immigration Canada has been left with insufficient resources to track these people down. Does the government have the will to protect Canadians, either at the beginning of the immigration process or when things go wrong?

John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto based strategic think tank, says CSIS, our security agencies, immigration officers and police officers cannot act because they do not have the resources or the will behind them.

We have a couple of suggestions regarding customs. First, one of the ways to deal with the problems is to make customs officials full law enforcement officers. The government cannot decide what they are right now. They are expected to protect our borders but are only given the tools to be tax collectors. If our first line of defence is to be our customs officials let us give them sidearms and the equipment they need. If they are only to be tax collectors let us give them calculators.

We have a huge concern that customs officials are left without the proper training. In larger centres they are getting some training but in smaller ones they have less access to the RCMP and little access to police support. They do not have access to quick response training and are often left out of the training schedule, especially lately regarding pepper spray and the use of batons. The people who most need protection and training are the last to get it.

The national vice-president of the Customs Excise Union, Gary Filek, said:

Canada Customs has been under a systematic process of deterioration and dismantling for approximately the last decade.

The Canadian Alliance is suggesting to the government that it restore Canadian confidence by setting up a common perimeter security network, that it detain new arrivals until it knows for sure who they are, that it limit refugee acceptance to real refugees, and that it make customs officials peace officers and give them the proper training and necessary tools to do their jobs.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

I am happy to be here today to speak about the role of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and about the fact that our customs officers must be well trained to carry out their duties.

It is important to clarify for my hon. colleagues and members opposite that the customs component of CCRA is not a police force but rather a border agency that administers the Customs Act and 70 other acts and regulations on behalf of other government departments and agencies.

Since Confederation, the Department of National Revenue, now the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, has been responsible for collecting revenues for the Canadian government. Initially, it collected customs and excise duties. Later on, it began to collect individual and corporate income taxes.

Over the years, however, the mandate and activities of the department, which is now an agency, evolved significantly, largely in response to the new requirements of its clients.

At the present time, the agency collects 95% of federal revenues. Customs officers continue to collect customs and excise duties, to gather important import and export data, and to check the shipments and manifests of travellers and commodities. The agency also has a mandate to ensure a level international playing field for Canadian companies.

Each year, 111 million Canadians and 11 million commercial shipments from over 160,000 importers cross our border. The majority of these travellers and clients are honest and law-abiding. Accordingly, they must be processed quickly and efficiently.

It is true, however, that a--

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to know whether we still have a quorum to validly debate in this House.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum and debate shall continue. The Minister of National Revenue.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is, however, true that a few of these travellers and trade missions represent threats to the health, security and economic well-being of Canadians. We must be vigilant in order to detect and counter these threats. This was our reality before September 11 and it remains so today.

The mandate of customs within the agency is clear. It continues to be to protect the health and security of Canadians and to facilitate the flow of eligible travellers and trade missions.

Commerce and trade form the cornerstone of Canada's economy, and customs is the key to their vitality and continuity.

To ensure Canada's continued prosperity and security, I released the customs action plan in April 2000.

In proposing innovative solutions to today's problems, the plan ensures that our customs' processes will not stand in the way of Canadians' prosperity.

The action plan, which Bill S-23 will implement, provides for a complete risk management system integrating the principles of pre-arrival data input and a system of prior approval, all thanks to technology.

As the result of the events of September 11, it is all the more important to put this plan into action. It is vital to meeting the challenges facing us, including that of maintaining heightened security and ensuring economic stability at the same time.

The risk based processes contained in the plan are even more crucial to the security of Canada. With a few adjustments, I am proceeding rapidly to implement these changes so that our country remains safe while we keep its economy in good shape. The adjustments we plan to make involve the acceleration of several security related initiatives which will provide for $21 million for new technologies and increased staff at our airports and seaports. Our focus on airports and seaports is necessary given the increased risk that exists at our external borders from threats such as terrorism and drugs.

In order to proceed with the implementation we have secured all party support for Bill S-23, which is the foundation for this plan. It includes, for example, new authorities for strengthening security at our airports by allowing us to receive advance information on passengers. With the legislation in place we would be able to proceed rapidly with the implementation of new services that Canadians need and deserve.

This is an investment we have made in a smarter border; however, this alone is not enough. Not only do we have to accelerate the protection initiatives, we must also expand our activities with the U.S. to merge best practices and develop common programs. Canada and the U.S. need to have joint risk based programs at the land border and co-ordinated approaches at the external border. This would lead to dramatic efficiencies for commercial trade and strengthened defences against terrorism at our international airports and seaports.

Senior officials have already met to look at what we can do together to meet the challenges of our dual mandate of protection and facilitation of trade and travel. As I mentioned before in the House, trade and tourism are the lifeblood of our economy and customs is a key component in ensuring their vitality and continuity. While our dual mandate of protection and competitiveness may seem distinct and unconnected, they are in fact very much related.

The customs process is a continuum of linked activities that extend from admissibility decisions and examinations performed by customs officers at the border to post-release verification activities. This continuum is critical to the effective functioning of the customs program. The joint effort of all customs personnel is required to effectively assess and respond to risks posed by goods and people entering and exiting Canada.

Through the customs program, the agency is responsible for identifying inadmissible people, prohibited goods and controlled strategic goods. In addition to detecting and interdicting contraband and inadmissible people, customs inspectors are also instrumental in ensuring the administration of a wide area of trade related legislation governing the transborder movement of goods.

For example, in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians, inspectors: refer agricultural products and other commercial goods for inspection; sample denatured alcohol, other chemicals and gasoline; control the entry of dangerous goods such as hazardous waste; and refer goods for inspection that must meet Canadian standards.

In addition, we have recently established what we have called the increased powers of customs officers, which increase our response capability.

As I have said on a number of occasions in the House, customs officers, and customs in Canada are not a police force. In the present context, with the recent changes and the volume of work we must deal with daily, I think Bill S-23 provides us with all the information and tools we need to do an even better job for all Canadians.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate regarding Canada Customs.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is a border agency that manages the Customs Act and customs duties and regulations on behalf of the Canadian government. However, Canada Customs is not a police force. It has the important mandate of protecting the health, safety and security of Canadians and at the same ensuring that trade and travel flow freely at the border.

For one and a half years the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has worked on the new customs action plan. It will modernize our customs system by introducing pre-approval programs for businesses and travellers. It has a dual mandate for trade and passengers so we can expedite low risk travellers and goods and focus on high risk shipments and passengers.

The CCRA is responsible for identifying inadmissible people and prohibiting illegal material such as drugs, firearms, obscene material and hate literature. We all know that the customs officers work on the front lines at the border. They have to specialize in the work and be specially trained. They are always peace officers with the power to detain and arrest individuals who commit illegal acts under the Customs Act.

Recently the Minister of National Revenue and I, with a team, visited the Douglas border crossing in B.C. It is a very busy area. One of the officers in a booth at the crossing demonstrated the computer technology used to pre-screen low risk car passengers to facilitate faster movement at the border.

With the passage of Bill S-23 in the House we would be able to apply specialized technologies to improve our security measures at the seaports, airports and land border crossings.

CCRA will introduce a new customs action plan with public support. Recently customs received additional funding of $12 million for the application of new technologies and $9 million for an additional 130 customs officers with special training.

Customs has an excellent state of the art training program which enables our officers to carry out their duties professionally and safely. CCRA has many dedicated and hard working officers to serve Canadians at the border, airports and seaports.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will continue to serve Canadians as an innovative leader and a valuable partner. It is an organization that is essential to the government. I do hope my colleagues in the House will support Bill S-23.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her interest in this area. There is a very important issue considering the amount of business we do every day with the United States and how important the open border is to Canadians in terms of standard of living. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, because she is from Vancouver, if she has had discussions with the port authority in Vancouver to talk about issues such as the container business, which is of vital importance to the city of Vancouver.

It is the container business that makes Vancouver the first port of call for a lot of container traffic, traffic that has tripled in volume over the last seven years. How does the government intend to deal with security issues that the United States has with Canada in order to make sure that we can maintain the flow of container business into the United States in terms of having it pre-inspected by U.S. authorities so that it does not need to have an inspection again? How will we meet the security concerns the Americans have in order to facilitate that and maintain the amount of product shipped to the United States out of the port of Vancouver?

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, customs has been very actively in discussion with the port authority over the last three years. Actually the Minister of National Revenue and I have visited there. They have demonstrated to us how a ship receives goods and how they use specially trained detective dogs so that any undesirable shipment of goods will be captured.

I thank the member for his attention to that. Certainly we are quite active and we are regularly in touch with the authority.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in the riding of the member from the Liberal side there is a high percentage of immigrants from Hong Kong, from China and from Taiwan. I have certainly heard the broadcasts on Fairchild radio and have been for interviews myself in the Vancouver area.

I would like her to confirm that immigrants from Hong Kong and Taiwan, that is, genuine immigrants, are just as concerned as the rest of the Vancouver population with abuse of the immigration system and that there are just as many people pushing from the genuine immigrant community of Chinese for changes to the law as there are in the rest of the community in Vancouver.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we know that in B.C. there is a large Chinese immigrant population. They are from Hong Kong, Taiwan and China. The community is very interested in any possible abuse, but at this moment I think we all know that there are no guarantees with any group of people. There are people who will be questioned and detained while we go through due process in the meantime.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River. I rise on behalf of the people of Prince George--Bulkley Valley and indeed all Canadians who are concerned about their safety and security subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and some of the attacks that have taken place since that date.

We in the official opposition have been imploring the government to come up with a plan which will assure Canadians that their communities, streets and buildings will be safe wherever they go in Canada. We have been asking the government to make the official opposition and all other opposition parties in the House part of that plan.

The government to date has refused to do that. As a matter of fact, for a great many days following the September 11 attacks the government was in virtual denial that Canada was at threat or could be at threat. It has only been recently that the government has actually recognized the fact that as an ally to the U.S. and other western countries and as a member of NATO we are at threat.

When it comes to the safety and security of our families and our communities, the government needs something to give Canadians which will make them feel the government has a handle on the very present threat. It has not done that.

I want to draw an analogy for a moment. We know from the evidence presented that people associated with terrorist organizations are living or have lived in Canada. There is ample evidence. I have some quotes that I will read from CSIS and from police departments. We know they are here.

Through its departments and its authorities the government has a responsibility to search these people out and hold them accountable for whatever activity in which they have been involved. If that means illegal activities in Canada, they would be tried under Canadian laws. If it means they have come from another country where they have been involved in terrorist activity and are subject to extradition, the government should be co-operating to the fullest extent with the countries seeking their extradition.

It is like cleaning up the nest. We should be doing that aggressively as a government because of the very real threat. If at the same time we are not taking measures to protect the perimeters of our country from more people coming into Canada, which in this case is the borders between Canada and the U.S. as well as the complete North American perimeter, the clean up job within will go on forever. The government has not put forward anything substantive to protect the perimeters of the country. That is what this supply day motion is all about. It starts out as follows:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both immigration officers and customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

They cannot do that now.

We have heard in the House over the last couple of weeks that border guards cannot detain people whom they suspect of being either terrorists or involved in terrorist activity. They need to phone a police department somewhere to come and arrest them. That is very inefficient.

We have called on the government to move customs border officers out of tax collection. We know the Liberals love to collect taxes and this really goes against their grain. I am sure the former minister of national revenue cringes when I talk about taking people out of tax collection.

In a time of crisis like this one when we have a terrorist threat, would it not be logical to move these customs border officers out of tax collection and put them into a law enforcement department so that they would have expanded powers to deal with real threats?

I am sure people trying to sneak across $200 worth of cigarettes that they are not allowed to bring across the border must be low in priority as compared to trying to detain and arrest someone who is maybe a terrorist threat to our country or to the U.S.

We also call on the government to take steps to detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation. This is not rocket science. It happens in many other countries. They should be detained until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks. What is wrong with that?

These are logical steps that a government which recognizes there is a threat in the country would take, but it has not taken them.

Let me turn to safe third countries including the United States and members states of the European Union from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants. If people are fleeing from a country where they feel they are being persecuted or they are in danger to a safe country, why are they not seeking asylum or refugee status in countries that are members of the United Nations protocol on refugee claimants? Many people who come from another country into a safe country and use it as a stepping stone to Canada have ulterior motives. We have seen that.

I have a couple of quotes that will not be a surprise:

Canada is almost a welcome wagon for crime. Here it is much lower risk of detention and prosecution than in the United States and Europe.

That is not a surprise. It was stated by an expert on organized crime. Here is another statement referring to Canada:

With perhaps the singular exception of the United States there are more international terrorist groups active here than in any other country of the world

Is this written by someone who does not know? This is a statement by CSIS head Ward Elcock on March 3, 2000. It goes on and on and on:

Many of the world's terrorist groups have a presence in Canada where they are engaged in a variety of activities in support of terrorism including logistical support.

That is from another CSIS report. That is the agency which is supposed to advise the government if there is a threat from things like terrorism.

Mountains of evidence indicates that Canada has been a haven for criminals from other countries who have come here to commit criminal acts, including people who are associated with terrorist cells. They come to Canada because it is a wonderful place to work from. Despite all the evidence that has been presented to the government, it has been in denial. It has been acting in the most Pollyanna way possible: everything is all right; we will just hope that it goes away and for sure it will.

We have asked the government to allow us to be part of dealing with this real threat to the country. We are taking this initiative among many others to be part of it. Will the government let us be and will it adopt our supply day motion?

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the member was giving his presentation it reminded me of an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun recently, from which I will quote directly:

The Liberal party, which vigorously courts the ethnic vote, has also been in favour of affording potential refugees the same rights as Canadians. But we're in a new war against terror, and this is no longer tenable...Ottawa should invoke the notwithstanding clause to stop foolish court decisions from jeopardizing our safety.

I wonder if it struck the member as it certainly struck me. He mentioned the Pollyanna attitude, the constant denial from the Liberal side of the House that there is any problem. The Minister of Finance went to a fundraising deal. CSIS warned him it was a problem but he still went. Now we have denial. They will not even mention CSIS warnings about the number of terrorists in our country. They are in a state of denial.

Has the member noticed the constant state of denial on the opposite side?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are statistics and reports about terrorist activity and operations in Canada and illegitimate refugee claimants. People have come to this country, have committed crimes and have been deported. In one case I heard the other day it happened 27 times. When we talk to average Canadians about this they roll their eyes in disbelief at how a government could be so incompetent and disregarding of what is right and wrong. They wonder how a government could allow this to go on.

The only answer I can give them, because there is no common sense in any answer the government could give, is that they have a Liberal government in Ottawa. They should look at the history of what has been going on for years. It simply does not know how to react because its political activity runs headlong into the laws that govern this country.

If something happens when the Liberals are in power, the political philosophy always seems to win out at the detriment of Canadians and the country.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my colleague a question. He talked about ignoring the problem, but I think it may be more than that. It seems to me that it is actually a policy of neglect. The government has been in power for eight years and resources have been drained away from many of our security institutions.

The minister of fisheries is in the House this afternoon. He has given authority to his fisheries officers to be able to have flak jackets and sidearms to come to meetings with forestry officials in Alberta. They come to such community meetings with a show of force, and yet the government will not give our border security people the same support in terms of the ability to have sidearms.

Would my colleague care to comment on that aspect of security laxness?

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Peace River raises a couple of important points. Yes, the RCMP, CSIS and the port police have all had their budgets cut. Port police have pretty much been eliminated.

The government seems to think it is more important to put the RCMP in the national parks to protect the bears from people feeding them and things such as that. It says that only RCMP officers are competent to wear sidearms, certainly not forest rangers who wore them for years and looked after our national parks. It would rather take the RCMP away from fighting real criminals and put them in our national parks.

The description my colleague used of utter neglect is certainly true. The government just does not get it. The reason government members do not rise to ask me questions is that they do not have a response to realistic and true criticism. They do not know what to say.

I thank my party colleagues for allowing me to talk further about some of the neglect and mismanagement of the government particularly on security issues.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have already commented on a number of the areas of neglect in security concerns. My colleague for Prince George--Peace River expanded on them.

I will go in a different direction this afternoon and talk about the motion and how it affects the business community in Canada and, therefore, our standard of living as Canadians.

The motion before the House today is one of common sense. These proposals should have been enacted a long time ago. The Canada-U.S. border is of vital importance to the Canadian economy.

It is an understatement to say that the events of September 11 changed everything. We must accept that things are radically different and that business as usual is not what it used to be. We must move quickly to develop appropriate strategies to move forward.

One of the key challenges facing governments in Canada and the U.S. today is how to best balance the need for increased security with the need to keep the economy moving. The new security concerns must be addressed, while allowing commerce, goods and people access to the North American market.

What is at risk if we do not adequately address the perimeter security issue and come up with a new border protocol?

Canadians understand that a new border protocol must be established to safeguard our standard of living. Fully one-third of the country's GDP is dependent upon trade with the U.S. Trade between the U.S. and Canada represents more than $1.9 billion a day in business across that border. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, a freight truck crosses the Canada-U.S. border every three seconds.

When the border was suddenly closed in the wake of September 11, Canadians and Americans became painfully aware of our reliance on the easy border transit. In a matter of hours, trucks were lined up for kilometres at border crossings across the country and the industrial and commercial interests of both of our countries felt the pinch. That is what is called an integrated society in business, which we have in so many areas between Canada and the United States.

Many industries, the auto industry in particular, operate on a just in time delivery system. Goods arrive by truck timed so they can enter the production process hours after being received. It is only hours, not days and months. Otherwise, whole assembly operations can be shut down and people sent home, something we witnessed after September 11. For businesses operating on a just in time delivery system, the border runs right through the middle of their auto assembly lines. The fear is that Americans will buy U.S. made components instead of waiting for Canadian parts that are stuck at the border.

Some foreign buyers have even demanded consignment inventories which will be financed by the selling company right up to the point where the buyer uses the goods, a direct increase in costs. In some cases, they are demanding that there be a big build up of inventory to offset for any slowdown at the border.

Business groups and provincial governments have made it clear that the preservation and efficient and secure trade across the border must be the number one business issue for the government. They have other concerns, like high taxes and low productivity, but they have said this is the number one issue that needs to be addressed.

Eight provincial premiers and two territorial governments have signed B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell`s letter to the Prime Minister, which called for a continental security perimeter around North America by sharing information and collaborating to address all the aspects of the border, including security, immigration, trade and the movement of people and infrastructure.

A group of nearly 50 Canadian business associations and companies have joined forces behind the perimeter concept and are calling themselves the Coalition for a Secure and Trade Efficient Border. They are talking to their U.S. counterparts and demanding an indepth discussion on the border between the two countries.

In addition to the current difficulties at the border, the coalition is concerned that the failure to ensure an open trading climate will result in significant future investments bypassing Canada and locating in the United States. Why would a business establish in Canada when 80% of their production is going into the United States, if the border will be a problem for them in terms of delays?

They have good reason to be nervous. The president of Honda Motor Company has said the Japanese company may have to revise its North American strategy, which has industry analysts warning that Honda's statement could foreshadow a move to direct future investment into the United States at the expense of Canada.

We talked about the port of Vancouver. It is concerned that tighter controls at the U.S. border pose a threat to the port's viability as a North American gateway, which by the way, was a hard won victory for the port of Vancouver not too long ago. It was chosen as the first port of call for container ships coming in from China, containers that make their way to Chicago and other U.S. destinations by CN and CP Rail on another just in time delivery basis. It is concerned that if there are delays at the border, Vancouver may not be the port of call in the future. It may shift to Seattle because of the tight timing that is needed to deliver product.

Those fast, reliable rail connections to the U.S. mid-west are in jeopardy. Canadian National Railways has similar concerns to CP, because 52% of CN's business goes across the border into the United States.

Even more ominous, the commissioner of the U.S. immigration and naturalization services told the American senate just the other day that he plans to impose an entry-exit regime as part of the U.S. plan to beef up its borders. Under this system visitors will be required to be interviewed by U.S. customs agents and have their names recorded and confirmed when they enter or leave the United States. Canada fought off a similar measure two years ago, but after September 11 this will be much more difficult to avoid.

Obviously an entry-exit system would create enormous backlogs at the Canadian border. This is precisely what Canadian businesses have been worried about and why they are urging the government to start immediately on bilateral negotiations to discuss the security issues.

I welcome the plans for the Prime Minister to meet with the American and Mexican presidents to discuss a common security arrangement in North America. However, I wish he would meet with the business groups in Canada and his provincial counterparts before the meeting so that he can understand fully the gravity of this situation. What is at stake is the Canadian standard of living.

It is clear that in the current context it will not be possible to begin negotiations on strategies to eliminate border disruptions unless the Government of Canada takes immediate steps to address U.S. security concerns. That is the way the U.S. can send a strong message to Canada that it will not allow terrorists to come into the U.S. via Canada.

Recent steps, such as the creation of a cabinet committee to oversee domestic security issues, are steps in the right direction. However, this is not the time for foot dragging. The Liberal government does not seem to like the word perimeter. It raises the spectre of a bogeyman in some parts of the cabinet and caucus across the way. The normally sensible Minister of Foreign Affairs has branded the concept simplistic without bothering to flesh it out or even hear it. The Americans are talking about it and if we do not start to listen, the border will be closed down or delayed for Canada.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Trucking Association, the Rail Association of Canada, as well as American business groups and the U.S. ambassador call on the government to listen carefully to these voices. Canadians recognize that our naive border and refugee determination process is part of the problem.

Canada has long enjoyed many benefits due to our geographic, political and economic proximity to the United States. Now it is time to take our responsibilities seriously to ensure that continues to be the case.

We have had a 30% difference in lower productivity than the United States over the last 30 years. Our Canadian dollar has been sliding over that same period. We are already behind in terms of competitiveness. We cannot allow this border issue to put us any further behind or deny Canadian businesses access to the United States market. A huge population, 275 million people, need Canadian product, but they do not need it so bad that they will sacrifice security concerns to get it. They will start to source elsewhere if we do not react.

The ball is completely in the government's court. It has to make sure that our standard of living is maintained by addressing the security concerns that the United States have, as well as the very big concerns that Canadians have that their safety is not being jeopardized.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member for Peace River. It is obvious from his comments that he has not been following what Canada has been doing in terms of our border.

In fact , the hon. member probably is not aware of the blueprint on customs which was done some two and a half or three years ago when I was Minister of National Revenue. We wanted to use technologies at our borders, use our resources in the high risk areas and make sure that we worked with the Americans. Of course to do that we need to work with partnerships. We need to make sure the Americans also are on board so we can talk about protocols.

The business community has worked on this and has said that 40% of all the trade across our border is done with 100 companies. We were working on a protocol so that those companies, after their drivers had gone through security clearance, could drive across our borders, thereby improving the movement of goods and services across the border.

The hon. member also knows we had the Canpass which put people through a security check. Once their security was approved and once they were considered very low risk, they could move back and forth across our border. The problem was the Canpass only worked one way. One of the things in which I was very much involved was to have a common pass. The Americans had Instapass and we had Canpass. I wanted to have a common criteria so we could work together with the Americans.

A lot of work was done on that. I visited my colleagues in the states to work together in partnership. Our border system was made pre-free trade and we had to move to post-free trade so that we could have protocols, use technologies and improve the movement of goods and services across the border. Unfortunately at that time the Americans were not as motivated as we were to adopt some of these new technologies, to move forward, to sign agreements and to sign protocols so that we truly could have movement of goods and services.

It is obvious that members on that side of the House and the hon. member have not been following this. He has not watched what has been going on. If he wanted go back we could give him the material that was completed. We would be happy to give him more documents.

Has the member looked at the blueprint for customs that was done some two and a half years ago? That is exactly what it talks about; the movement of goods and services across the border.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address that issue. There was substantial work done. We do not deny that, but we are very concerned. The member does not seem to realize that all the work that was done is now in jeopardy because the government has neglected the security issues that have concerned Americans for the full eight years it has been in office.

It was not just that the Liberals were misinformed. Their priorities were in different areas. They chose to neglect the security issues. They chose to ignore, underfund and cut back the budget of CSIS. They chose to cut back the budget of the RCMP.

We have one person in the country who has been here since 1984. He came here illegally. He was involved in a hijacking in the Middle East in 1971. He has never been able to be removed because of the appeal process at immigration and the immigration industry that has been built up. Those are the kinds of concerns that the Americans have.

All the good work that was done to develop border protocol is now in jeopardy because the United States has said that if we do not start to address the its security concerns, with 6,000 people killed by an act of terrorism, it will stop us by shutting down or restricting our border. So we better start to listen.

That is the message I have for the minister across the way. All the work that has been done is in jeopardy because of the neglect of the government.