House of Commons Hansard #84 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was border.
Raymonde Folco LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, we have received the report by the House of Commons committee and are studying it. As agreed, we will be making a public response.
Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail published a confidential internal document bulletin issued to our border guards regarding risk assessment. This incident occurred five days ago and I am sure the investigation by the Minister of National Revenue is well underway.
I want to know how this sensitive document was leaked.
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)
Mr. Speaker, the question of risk assessment, as I have said on numerous occasions, is part of our daily job. Facing tragic malicious events, like the one we know so well, we must get involved and proceed with the tools that we have at our disposal.
Talking about risk assessment, what we want to do in the near future is use additional tools. In order to use additional tools we need Bill S-23, which is being blocked in the House of Commons by those opposition members. They are irresponsible. They do not pay attention to the security of Canadians and we do.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I wish to inform the House of the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Michel Sapin, Minister of the Public Service and Government Reform of the Republic of France.
Presence in GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I also wish to inform the House of the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Cheick Amadou Camara, Minister of the Economy and Finance, and of His Excellency Lamine Kamara, Minister of Employment and the Public Service of the Republic of Guinea.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough concerning the status in the House of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition.
First, though, l want to thank all hon. members for their gracious co-operation with the Chair when the House met last week. This co-operation made it possible to make appropriate interim arrangements without prejudice to any decision on this matter, and facilitated the orderly conduct of urgent business by postponing to an opportune time full consideration of this point of order.
The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough referred to a letter he had written to me concerning the establishment of the 20 member Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition, its membership and the appointment of its officers. Meant to function, as he says, “within the machinery of the House of Commons”, the coalition seeks to be recognized officially in the House for certain procedural purposes. It is requesting “all of the privileges and rights” associated with recognition as the “fourth largest political entity” in the House, namely with respect to seating in the House, precedence and the allocation of time in all deliberations.
I thank the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for having raised the matter on behalf of the Coalition. I would also like to thank the House leader of the official opposition, the House leader for the Bloc Quebecois, the government House leader, the House leader of the New Democratic Party and the hon. member for Fraser Valley for their contributions to the discussion.
As various members and many pundits have pointed out, the situation facing us is, in many ways, unprecedented, and I would ask for the House’s indulgence as I try to untangle the skeins of argument that have been presented.
Let me deal first with the suggestion that this is perhaps a matter better decided by the House than by the Speaker. In this regard, members have referred to the 1963 ruling by Mr. Speaker MacNaughton concerning the fragmentation of the Social Credit Party and the resulting claims of the Raillement des créditistes. That ruling is of some assistance and I will return to it later in my remarks but, like so many other references, it is not entirely on point. In the almost four decades since that ruling, our practice has evolved and I do not believe that it is inappropriate for the Chair in the present case to consider the matters that have been laid before it. Indeed, I believe that to do otherwise would be to shirk the Chair's undoubted responsibility to protect the rights of all minorities in the House.
Thus, I find it difficult to understand why, if it was appropriate for the New Democratic Party to argue for recognition before the Speaker in 1994, it is inappropriate for the coalition to put its case to the Speaker today. In my view the Speaker must rule on these matters as he did in 1994.
I draw to members’ attention the words of Mr. Speaker Fraser, as reported in the Debates of September 24, 1990, on page 13216:
I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the hon. member that the rights of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other members.
Before we consider the arguments for and against the case for recognition presented by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, let us set aside the many points raised during the discussion that may be of peripheral interest but that are not relevant--let alone illuminating--to the question to be decided.
For example, there were several references made to the definition and recognition of political parties in statutes, notably the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act.
Of course it is a long held principle that the Speaker does not interpret matters of law. Nonetheless, political parties are a fundamental part of our electoral process and detailed requirements concerning their registration are set out in part 18 of the Canada Elections Act. The hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party said:
I do not think the House of Commons can be completely isolated from what takes place outside it and from the status people enjoy outside the House.
To be sure there are political parties outside the House and there are recognized parties and caucuses inside the House and these may be closely linked. In matters relating to the status or designation of individuals or groups in the House, the House makes its own decisions without necessarily limiting itself to standards and definitions used outside the House of Commons. Definitions used in the House of Commons are not drawn from statute; they are drawn from the practice of the House.
After a general election, the statutory focus shifts from the Canada Elections Act to the Parliament of Canada Act which later act, for example, stipulates the composition and role of the Board of Internal Economy. The bylaws of the board in turn govern the execution of those statutory responsibilities through the administration of the House of Commons.
The arguments advanced by hon. members referring to either of these statutes to the bylaws of the board of internal economy or to the board's responsibility for matters of finance and administration do not concern us here. The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has rightly explained that he intends to raise these issues with the board in due course, so these statutory and resourcing matters need not detain us.
The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona implied in argument that recognition by the House involved an application of the rules surrounding a marriage ceremony. The hon. member is an expert in holy matrimony with wide experience in performing marriages. His comments were of great assistance to a Speaker untutored in these matters. However, I would remind him that even common law relationships sometimes attract a sort of legal recognition. Society may recognize certain things. The House is another matter.
Let us turn to the crux of the problem, that is, whether House of Commons procedure will permit the recognition of what the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has described as “the fourth largest political entity” in the House, the PC/DR Coalition.
It might be helpful to return to first principles here, because so many extraneous elements have been invoked on this question in the widespread speculation that this controversial, highly publicized situation has provoked.
Let us return to the opening of a parliament and the convening of a newly elected House. Once a general election has been held and the writs of election issued, attention turns from external political realities to the internal realities of a new parliament. The political focus shifts from the electors and the election to the elected MPs sitting in the House of Commons and its committees.
Deliberations in the Chamber and in committee are governed by the standing orders and by House procedure and practice. In these procedural authorities the terms “party” or “recognized party” refer to a group of members with a number of identifying features: first, there are at least 12 members in the group; second, they appoint a slate of House officers as their official spokespersons; third, they work as a cohesive unit; and fourth, they serve under the same banner.
In a newly constituted House for the duration of a parliament, each individual for whom a writ of election has been received will work as an MP usually within a party. The machinery of the party caucus, that is, its officers, staff and research bureau, will serve to organize each party's work in the House and in committee.
During the course of a parliament we have seen members change parties, members suspended from caucus and members expelled from caucus. Each member was elected to the House. Each member elected to the House may live out the vicissitudes of that parliament as he or she sees fit. Indeed, each member may self-designate his or her affiliations or lack thereof.
In this regard, a basic question is how a member will be identified. It is an accepted part of our practice that individual members and groups are permitted to select the manner in which they will be designated for parliamentary purposes. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in the Debates of December 13, 1990, on page 16705:
--the Chair must advise that it can find no prescription limiting the designations inserted under political affiliation in the Appendix to Debates to those parties officially recognized as such pursuant to the Canada Elections Act.
The absence of such a limiting prescription must be weighed against the combined weight of our past practice in this regard and our longstanding tradition of respecting the word and legitimate demands to self-definition of individual members.
In the case before us we have 12 members of the recognized Progressive Conservative Party and eight independent members who comprise the Democratic Representative caucus, in total a group of 20 MPs who have identified themselves to the Speaker as members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative, or PC/DR, Coalition. This is the title of the caucus under which they will henceforth be known.
The coalition composed of these 20 members has further announced that it will function as a group for parliamentary purposes and has informed the Chair of its slate of officers. Here again these are matters that the House has always left entirely to the discretion of MPs. They identify themselves as individuals and are free to identify themselves as a group. Their spokespersons are theirs to select. Neither the Speaker nor other members has a say in such matters.
Therefore I have concluded that the officers named by the PC/DR Coalition will be recognized as the coalition's spokespersons in the usual operations of the House and its committees. They are: the right hon. member for Calgary Centre as leader; the hon. member for Fraser Valley as deputy leader; the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as House leader; the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River as whip; and the hon. member for Edmonton North as caucus chair.
Just as I must conclude that the coalition's officers must be recognized, I can find no procedural objection to the request that members who share the PC/DR designation and the leadership of these officers should be seated together in the configuration that their whip may determine. In my view this is not a matter where the Chair has any grounds to object or to intervene.
However what I have granted to this point is not all of what is being sought. On the basis that it possesses more than the basic 12 members required for status as a recognized party in the House, the coalition seeks additional recognition. Specifically it argues that by virtue of its 20 member composition, the PC/DR Coalition should have precedence over the 13 member New Democratic Party. In other words, the coalition seeks to be recognized as the fourth party in the House, or seen another way, as the third party in opposition.
It is here that the Chair encounters considerable difficulty. Earlier I listed what can be extrapolated as the hallmarks of a party or a recognized party under our procedure and practice, namely at least 12 members with a set of House officers working as a cohesive unit, serving under the same banner.
My problem is simple. By its very name the coalition acknowledges that it is a composite entity. An analysis of the arguments finds it successfully passes the first two tests set by our practice for any recognized party, and to the extent that a single set of House officers are its spokespersons, it can be said that it meets the third criterion of working as a cohesive unit.
Yet the coalition has declined to present itself as a party in this place. It may speak as a party does, It may operate as a party does, but until such time as its members present themselves as a party, the recognition the coalition seeks with regard to precedence and allocation of time must remain at best a matter for negotiation between the coalition and the four recognized parties.
In discussing the process of debate, Marleau and Montpetit states at page 506:
The Speaker subsequently “sees” Members from opposite sides of the House in a reasonable rotation, bearing in mind the membership of the various recognized parties in the House, the right of reply, and the nature of the proceedings.
In determining the allocation of precedence and time during debate, during question period and statements by members, in the distribution of allotted days and the composition of committees, the Speaker receives the advice of the House leaders and whips who negotiate agreements on these matters based on party strength in the House. Agreements reached through the negotiations of House officers greatly facilitate the work of all members here in the House and in committee and are of immeasurable value to the Chair in its presiding role.
For such negotiations to be genuine, all officers concerned must be given an equal opportunity to participate. I am sure that the hon. House leader and the other officers of the PC/DR Coalition seek no more than this and I know they will be afforded the usual courtesies by their counterparts. Only under the most extreme circumstances where the fundamental rights of members were threatened would the Speaker feel compelled to intervene in such matters.
I remind the House of the words of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton in the Journals of September 30, 1963, at page 387:
It is not (a situation) where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have been prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in a position where he must decide, to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters affecting the character or existence of a party, for this surely would signify that the Speaker had taken what was almost a political decision--
In summary then, after careful scrutiny of all our precedents and of various analogous situations in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth, the Chair has concluded that our practice has uniformly dealt not with the recognition of groups but with that of parties.
The Chair acknowledges and recognizes the PC/DR Coalition as the regrouping of, on the one hand, a recognized party, and on the other, a group of dissident members, together operating as a single caucus. The officers of the coalition will therefore be recognized as the official spokespersons for the coalition and the members of the coalition will be permitted to sit together in any arrangement they wish. Since the Progressive Conservatives retain their status as a recognized party, the PC/DR Coalition will continue to enjoy the precedence afforded to the Progressive Conservatives.
However, the Chair is unable at this time to grant full party recognition to the PC/DR Coalition since I cannot extend recognition as a party to a group which disavows that title and which is clearly an amalgam of a party and a group of independent MPs.
If circumstances change, the Chair will of course be prepared to revisit this question.
I thank hon. members for the contributions they made on this difficult and important question and of course for the free advice offered over the past few months by our media.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition from citizens of Peterborough who would like to see VIA service re-established between Toronto and Peterborough. They see this as improving the environment, reducing pollution on the highways and improving the business status not only of Peterborough but of the greater Toronto area.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition. This petition is from citizens of Peterborough who are concerned about those of our citizens who suffer from end stage kidney disease.
These people support research on the bioartificial kidney. The bioartificial kidney is an implant which will greatly improve the life of those who have kidney disease. Work is going ahead in the United States. There is support for it in Canada.
The petitioners call upon parliament to support research on the bioartificial kidney, which will eventually eliminate the need for dialysis or transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from the citizens of Yukon from the supporters of Falun Gong who are opposed to the torture and murder of the members of that sect who are simply standing for truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. The petitioners would like Canada to set up a rescue team to help support these people and free Falun Gong practitioners who are now in prison.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be now read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill, especially as the elected representative of a riding that has experienced remarkable industrial growth over the last few years.
Indeed, we have seen an increase in trade in recent years. In this context, a review of our customs policies has become necessary. Changes are required so that both people and goods can move more freely and more rapidly at our borders. I will come back to the situation in my riding, which has some concerns with regard to Bill S-23.
Quebec, its government and the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of the freer movement of goods and services between countries. We supported NAFTA and we support the FTAA, as long as individual and cultural rights are respected.
However, Bill S-23 confers regulatory powers that we think leave too much room for ministerial discretion. In fact, it seems to be this government's way of doing things. There is the act, and then there are regulations that are added later on, which makes it impossible to have an overall picture of the act and its impact.
As legislators, we do not like giving so much power to a minister. This situation raises questions on a number of points relating to security. Customs clearance measures will in fact be defined by the minister's regulatory powers in future regulations. Accordingly, we cannot know exactly what the law will provide in this regard.
We agree with the government's intent to modernize customs procedures to promote and more importantly to facilitate trade. However, there must be some balance between procedures and security. In this regard, the events of September 11 in the United States gave rise to a tightening of border control measures. In some instances, transportation industry workers spent more time waiting at the borders than doing their delivery.
Trade between the States and Canada represents approximately $2 billion a day—about 100 million people cross the border annually—hence the importance of keeping our borders open and operating. Canada should also consider sharing customs controls with the United States. But as it stands, Bill S-23 does not allow us to accurately assess the balance between security and the modernization of procedures, because it leaves too much to the discretion of the minister.
Bill S-23 also provides for the establishment of two programs that will enable travellers to clear customs more quickly. Automated points will appear in airports and will help “approved” travellers pass quickly through the formalities of customs and immigration. Those who regularly cross the border, under expanded streamlined clearance programs, will be given the pass we know today as the Canpass.
This is happening at a time when, at airports and border crossings, authorities have decided to increase staff for the single purpose of tightening control and safety measures. Right now, every vehicle that crosses the border is inspected. The director of the Canada project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Christopher Sands, recently told a journalist:
No border between countries as rich and developed is so little advanced technologically, so mediocre as ours.
This is a sad comment. Is it also the minister's intention to invest financially to improve the situation?
Earlier, I mentioned that I wanted to talk about my riding, because the two go together. Currently, people in my riding are very concerned about this bill, which would change customs services provided in my constituency and which would probably adversely affect these services.
I will begin with a brief description of the area. Drummondville is located at the intersection of highways 20 and 55, which provide direct and quick access to Montreal and Quebec City, major U.S. highways, local and international airports, seaports and ports along the seaway. Drummondville is itself a central location for towns such as Victoriaville, Granby, Sherbrooke, Richmond, Saint-Hyacinthe, Sorel, Trois-Rivières, Thetford Mines, and so on.
Rail transportation is well structured and operates with intermodal. Over 20 transportation businesses have their terminal in Drummondville or in the area.
Local industries serve a growing number of consumers in a radius of 100 kilometres. They include a significant number of importers and exporters. For example, out of 653 importers who cleared customs in Drummondville last year, 173 are locally based.
The administrative region of Centre-du-Québec includes a majority of small and medium size businesses that are not inclined to use the CADEX system. This means that they depend on manual ways of doing things and on the proximity of points of service.
Already in a letter dated February 19, 1996, Deputy Minister Pierre Gravelle explained why it was beneficial to move to Drummondville services that had until then been provided in Victoriaville, this after a thorough review of the situation.
Three customs inspectors work full time at the office located in Drummondville, the only town in the region of Centre-du-Québec that provides customs services.
This includes regular and fast-tracked customs release; the clearance of highway and rail freight; customs clearance at six sufferance warehouses; a highway sufferance warehouse; customs clearance for air passengers at the Drummondville and Victoriaville airports; service to the public; small craft licensing.
In a letter he wrote to me last year, the Minister of Revenue indicated as follows “Canada Customs and Revenue Agency operates on a risk management basis and would like to reallocate its resources from low risk customs offices to higher risk offices”. This means, to all intents and purposes, that we could cease having any customs inspectors in Drummondville, on the pretext that the security risk there is low.
If this statement could perhaps be at least somewhat supported last year, it is at the very least highly debatable at the present time, for three reasons: the increased cross-border trade; the intensification of organized crime activities; the acts of terrorism in the United States, of which we are all aware.
To address the increase in trade, as everyone no doubt is aware, the Drummondville area is in such a rate of economic expansion that it is now considered the driver of Quebec's economy. International trade is on the upturn, particularly with the U.S. That is why we have two customs brokers in our area: Affiliated Customs Brokers and Fritz Starber Inc.
As well, we have two private schools giving courses on international trade: Ellis Business College and Abrimex.
The number of commercial customs releases is evidence of this. From a level of 12,965 in 1997-98, and of 14,179 in 1998-99, it has been constantly on the increase, despite new technologies and simplified procedures.
It is obvious that the opening up of markets and the free trade are going to accelerate this phenomenon. We cannot see how an increase in goods being shipped and of persons crossing the border can reduce the security risk.
Let me now turn to the increase in crime. Initially, the RCMP considered shutting down its Drummondville detachment, but given the notable rise in crime and the recommendations of an internal working group, it has decided rather to maintain its existing services and even got, nationally, an additional $59 million “specifically to fight organized crime, terrorism, drug trafficking, smuggling and people smuggling.”
Clearly recognizing the increased risk, the solicitor general indicated at the same time that he wanted the RCMP to be better prepared to fight organized crime and transborder threats to the safety and security of the population.
Again, we are having trouble understanding how Canada customs could conclude that the risks were low when the RCMP believes they have increased and has acted accordingly.
The tragic events that have recently affected the U.S. have made us realize that we are not as safe as we thought we were and have led the U.S. to reconsider the superiority of high technology over human action, which is why we might be asked to review our procedures.
Finally, given the recent tragedies, I feel that things have changed and that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which focuses on risk management, should take that into consideration and avoid any hasty conclusion.
I would urge the minister to consult with the people in my riding before making any changes to the customs services, as he promised to do in his letter dated May 5.
He said this:
Senior officials from the agency will organize consultative meetings on this issue with political leaders like you, as well as with the mayor, city councillors and members of the community.
I wonder what will happen if Bill S-23 is passed without our being aware of all the regulations, if the minister closes customs offices in a riding like Drummond, where we need these resources and these services because of an increase in both imports and exports, if, because of the whole issue of security, staff is reduced and employees are laid off.
Rumour has it that it is senior officials or “small bosses” from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency who want to repatriate the powers in their areas, including Cowansville and Granby.
People from Drummond are at the mercy of those who want to repatriate services closer to them, saying that, thanks to new technologies, all problems will be solved. We are worried. If the minister chooses to proceed in this fashion, there will be a public outcry and he will never hear the end of it.
If his vision is to close offices where we need these resources to install more sophisticated systems at the border, maybe he should think about the terrorist attacks in the United States. They may have had all the new technologies and all the most sophisticated instruments, but they forgot about the importance of human resources in the field. If we forget that, our security may not be as stable and effective as we would like.
Although the objectives of the programs mentioned in Bill S-23 are good, there is still no provision for the security problems I mentioned earlier. Either security or savings will require compromise. The minister will have to tell us which approach he intends to choose and especially clarify S-23 in order to gain our support.
The two programs mentioned earlier, one of which is known as Canpass, will be established through regulatory means. It is as if we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. The underlying idea is a good one, but when it comes to applying and implementing the bill and the security aspect of it, the government seems to be saying “Trust me”.
Officials will submit regulations, and we will have to sign the blank cheque. I do not think it works that way. We, the legislators who represent our ridings, do not much like being asked to let things like “Trust us” pass. We are here to make laws. We are entitled to and we have a right to know what we are voting on.
In the current context, the public has the right to know and to debate such essential issues as customs clearance. I want to know how it will work at customs. The people want to know too, and they are concerned. We do not want to reach the end of the process to hear “We will be identifying you by your iris, and you will have this and that”.
This also includes people's private or personal information. Can we expect that this information will be protected? This is what we want to know. It is not mentioned in the bill, which only says “at the minister's discretion”. Regulations will be made; this will be regulated by the minister. But he is the one who will decide. Will the minister decide on the spur of the moment or after the fact? It is not normal to proceed like this.
Customs employees also have a right to know when and how these procedures will affect them in their daily tasks. Out of respect for our constituents—as I said earlier and I will conclude with this since I only have one minute left—we cannot, if nothing changes with this bill and if we do not have the regulations before us, sign a blank cheque.
Sophia Leung LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member express a lot of concern regarding the regulations such as AMPS, COMPASS and CSA. I am pleased to inform her that the CCRA will prepare a detailed draft regulation this week.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I really did not understand the hon. member's comment. I am sorry.
Still, I would like to remind her that, in my riding, the concern stems from the fact that when we talk about technological measures and changes, we must really include procedures. It goes without saying that changes are necessary. We must try to greatly enhance movement at our borders.
As I was saying earlier, there are trucks right now that are spending more time clearing customs than it delivering their goods. So, some changes are definitely required. But we really have to know what will happen.
We have a bill that seems to reflect good intentions, but there are no regulations. Everything is at the minister's discretion. In an area like mine, where, for the past four years, there have been rumors that customs services in Drummondville will close, this does not make sense.
Should that become reality, there will be public outcry because the whole riding of Drummond, which is made up of 22 municipalities, is against the closing of the customs office in Drummondville. That office serves region 17 in Quebec. We need it. It is not a big office, with only three customs officers at the moment. But why close this border crossing and move it to a non-neighbouring area where the situation is totally different from ours?
Why make such a decision? Human resources are being replaced by technology at a time when we need even more customs officers. We need people to ensure our safety. Right now, most Quebecers and Canadians are worried. Now is not to time to circulate rumours to the effect that our customs offices will be closed.
In response to the member's question, I can say that people in my riding are worried because Bill S-23 wants to take away human resources that are very important in light of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States.
I think there is a lesson to be learned from that. Now is not the time to remove people from the field. Yes, we do need new technologies, but we also need to keep our customs officers and even to double their numbers, because these people who work in the field know their job.
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation and found the issue of open borders and trade to be a compelling argument.
Any community actively dealing with its trading partners in the United States should be very concerned over the issue of security. The rumours the member heard about customs officers being pulled from the port of entry would certainly affect her riding. Whatever province in Canada we come from, close to 90% of our goods and services are tied to the American market and security should be examined closely.
I will ask a question I have asked several times in the House and one which I have not received much of a reply. On the one side the Customs Act wants to streamline legitimate cross border trade and travel by using new technology, electronic monitoring, self-assessment and advanced information for approval.
On the other side of the coin there is something that I believe needs to be addressed. I know there is an answer but I have not yet heard anything from the government side nor from the opposition side. I refer to the statement by the director of CSIS, Ward Elcock. He called Canada one of the world's pre-eminent terrorist targets. He further elaborated by saying “With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist groups active here than in any other country in the world”. I can see why, given our proximity to the United States.
With that security issue looming before us now, how can we streamline things on one side and also provide security on the other?
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I truly respect the opinion of the member of the official opposition. I do not have the answer to that question either.
As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with Bill S-23. I know that security at our borders needs to be tightened up. People close to me who have worked at crossing points in Quebec have often told me that it is very hard to control everything and to ensure public safety without the appropriate human and financial resources and the technology required.
Of course, what happened is very troubling. Given the tragedies that occurred in the U.S., Customs and Excise needs to reconsider things. The government has no other choice but to review all the services it provides at crossing points in order to ensure better protection and avoid as much as possible unlawful entry of persons in Canada, like traffickers who come and go between Canada and the U.S.
Canada's borders have often be called open sieves. It is not the first we hear such a thing. We know how easy it is to falsify Canadian passports. It looks like it is also very easy to come here and then travel to the United States.
We have to be very careful and very serious about this issue. As I said earlier, this is not the time to lay off the officers who ensure our safety, who see to it that travellers are well served, just because of the emergence of new technologies. Technology will never replace people in the field.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. I will speak specifically to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona.
When I think about the bill I must reflect on what has happened since September 11. I recently read a detailed schedule of what the Prime Minister did immediately after the attacks of September 11. I do not remember his exact words but the first thing he said was that nothing would be the same and that everything had changed.
However that is not true. Bill S-23 is still the same. Nothing in the bill has changed despite the events of September 11. The government has taken no initiative to change the bill to address all aspects of terrorism in the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington. The timing of the bill is wrong because it ignores the events of September 11.
We in my party therefore agree with the amendment. The bill should be pulled back, tabled, reviewed and rewritten to consider all the other approaches that will need to be taken to deal with the new world we live in. I think we all acknowledge that it is a new world and nothing will ever be the same. We have heard those words many times in the House.
Bill S-23 was written some time last year in a completely different set of circumstances. It was passed by the Senate in the spring and does not reflect the situation we find ourselves in now.
The bill is contradictory to many of the things we are now discussing such as increasing security and security perimeters. Bill S-23 would do the reverse of that in many ways. It would lean more on technology than on the ability of people to determine when there are contraventions of the Customs Act, falsified passports and so on.
We in our party think the bill should go back and be completely reviewed over a period of time. We support the amendment for that reason.
We are all facing new challenges which we did not face a few weeks ago. As I mentioned earlier, the United States is committed to a secure perimeter. Canada will either be inside the perimeter or outside it. The United States is not speculating on the perimeter; it is saying it will have it.
It is important that we adjust our customs regulations and customs act to recognize this. It will make a fundamental difference as to whether we are inside the perimeter or out.
Many technical aspects of our relationship with the United States will need to change. The U.S. wants us to review our extradition laws. I am sure that is one of the subjects the Prime Minister discussed today with the president of the United States. The U.S. is concerned about the long process illegal immigrants must go through when they find themselves in Canada. When the Liberal government takes exception to their presence it takes a long time to address the issue. That will need to be dealt with.
Many people say the government did not react properly in the first seven days after the attacks. My theory is that it has not reacted well in the last seven years. It has cut back spending to intelligence agencies and the military. It has had seven years of neglect on both counts. The government is depending more and more on technology. This has proven to be poor policy.
The previous speaker talked about the possible closure of a customs office in her riding. Two customs offices in my riding have been closed. They had been there for 100 years and are now gone. They are not there any more to perform the valuable service they used to provide. The government is focusing on technology instead of on people to do the job.
However many things will need to be dealt with in addition to customs and immigration. There are things like air traffic safety and aircraft regulations. An issue was raised in question period today about cutlery on aircraft. Locking cockpit doors is an issue that will need to be addressed. There was an immediate knee jerk reaction to this issue, a reaction with which I agree. However cockpits must be protected from encroachment.
On the question of air marshals, if the United States is to have air marshals on its aircraft does that mean Air Canada must have air marshals on its aircraft when they fly in the U.S.? Transponders were shut off in the four hijackings that took place recently in the United States. Will those regulations be changed? Will those airplanes be changed?
Many questions must be dealt with in addition to and including customs, airport security, access to luggage, access to airplanes, the people who groom the airplanes and the people who deal with the freight that goes on them. How will these be changed and adjusted? What legislation will we bring to the table to address this new world?
In light of the incredible circumstances experienced in the United States it is wrong to try to put through obsolete legislation which was written last year. I agree with the Prime Minister. Everything has changed, especially in terms of security, immigration and customs. It is important that we treat things differently than we did before September 11.
In that regard the amendment is the right way to go. We must stop the bill, go back and review it in light of all the other changes that must be made. It must be dealt with as a comprehensive package. It cannot be dealt with as a single issue. We must deal with extradition, immigration, border crossings, customs funding, intelligence funding, military funding, extradition laws and a legal process for illegal immigrants.
The bill is obsolete and it would be wrong to pass it under current circumstances. Our goal is certainly freer trade with the United States. However if we do not build our new environment with respect to the Americans and what they are doing, we may find ourselves with tougher trade instead of freer trade.
One thing that impressed me was the ability of the enemy we are now dealing with to fool intelligence agencies around the world. It took years to put the attack together. They did it through several countries. Some of the hijackers and terrorists lived in Canada, at least for some time, and we missed them. They lived in the U.S. and they missed them. They lived in many countries in Europe. They gathered together all kinds of explosive materials, information and training through these countries and no one caught on.
This is an intelligent group of terrorists. We must deal with that. We must be prepared for it. We cannot assume we will succeed because we have technology, spy satellites and all kinds of communications experts. That does not work. It does not count. We missed the boat. Our intelligence services completely failed to detect that this incredible terrorist act would take place.
The enemy is well prepared. It can take advantage of our rules if we are not careful. We must adjust our rules and amend our laws to prevent terrorists from contravening our systems and getting away with it.
It is most impressive that it took so long to put the attack together. It involved people crossing our borders into the United States and people entering Canada and the U.S. from other countries. No one caught them. Customs officers, intelligence agencies and the military failed to catch them.
I will wind up by saying that we in my party support the amendment. Amendments should be tabled to the Customs Act until a comprehensive approach to the whole new world situation can be established.
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis of the hon. member's presentation was somewhat different than that of many others who made their presentations today, not so much on this side but certainly on the Liberal side and among Bloc members.
The member expressed concern about terrorism, organized criminal activity and the like. That will certainly be a focal point. If anyone in the House believes there will be a streamlining in the movement of goods and people south of the border which does not answer the security issue, their heads are buried in the sand.
Given that these two things are playing out right now before us, the movement of goods will affect the economy one way or the other. If goods are held up at the border and customers are lost our economy will be hurt substantially. We have seen this happen over the last few days with the slowdown at border crossings. It is making its impact on our economy and will certainly do so with the Americans.
The issue of security has still not been addressed in its total form. How does the member think we can have a streamlining of goods and people across the border and still meet all the needs of security?
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. My feeling on this is and always has been that we should not just be doing what the United States tells us to. We should be establishing our own rules in consultation and collaboration with the U.S.
We have an obligation. We could be the next victim. We are in effect a victim now. Everything we do has changed. The hon. member mentioned lineups at the border. How about the 9,000 or 10,000 people who landed in Halifax unexpectedly? How about disruptions to our transportation system and all the changes we have had to make in security?
The terrorist attacks did not happen in Canada but they affected us in a tangible way. Maybe the next act will be in Canada. We must be philosophical about deciding what to do. The secure perimeter that the United States will establish could include us. This would protect our relationship with our biggest trading partner and allow for continued safe and secure transportation of goods back and forth.
If we establish rules that do not reflect the concerns of our partners in the United States, the U.S. may establish borders that prevent Canadian goods and services from going back and forth without a great deal of inspection and examination. This would effectively eliminate our most favoured nation status.
Our overall approach must be comprehensive. We cannot say we will deal with the customs aspect this way and the aircraft aspect that way. It must be a comprehensive approach.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we are now victims. We were victims the day the acts of terrorism took place. It was not only Americans who died but a large number of people of other nationalities including Canadians. When it comes to trade with the Americans we must realize that this is where Canada's bread and butter is.
If we do not live up to our obligations as the Americans see them they will curtail our trade quite substantially. The Americans have set up what is called homeland defence, a special committee or organization to address the security of their nation.
Should the government not be looking along the same lines? Should it not be working hand in hand with our American brothers and sisters on the issue instead of taking a different avenue? That is my question for the member.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is a delicate matter. We in Canada must establish our own rules but they must fit with what the United States is doing. We cannot let the United States tell us to do things, but we can come up with approaches to the issues which satisfy their concerns and allow us to maintain our sovereignty, our culture and our control over the issues.
As the hon. member said, the U.S. has established a homeland defence division and appointed a special secretary who answers directly to the president. That is the level of priority the U.S. is putting on security. If the Americans get a head start on us and start establishing rules without our input we will be left in the dust and unable to reflect our concerns. We will be in a very difficult position when we deal with the United States.
We should be in on this now. We should have our team in place and be in consultation with the Americans at this moment.