Debates of Sept. 24th, 2001

Customs Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of recent events, we have heard quite a bit about securing the perimeter of North America. It comes down to the question of what sort of consultation are we having with our neighbours to the south?

In that regard could the member tell us what consultations the government has had in bringing forward the bill to the House? It is very important that we know that we are consulting our American counterparts when we bring forward this type of legislation.

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the RCMP and CSIS work not only with the United States, but they also work in joint force with other countries. I am sure there will be a lot more joint effort to try to address some of the problems, especially those concerning protection and security for Canadians.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments about the use of computers and technology to minimize the risk at the border. I suppose that is a very good initiative by the government on that matter, but I wonder how that will deal with this problem.

If we take the situation of the millennium bomber, my understanding of the matter is that he was out of the country and managed to get himself a new passport. The passport changed his name from Ressam to Benni Norris. No matter what computer system was used, nothing showed up on a Benni Norris. It was blank. There was no criminal record and nothing in the background. If one had punched in Ressam, he or she would have found a lot of stuff.

I think just about everybody realizes that we have holes in our system right across the board. Our passport system is obviously a Mickey Mouse operation.

What can the government say about that particular situation? Will its computer systems be able to deal with phoney passport situations and so on or will it just let it go the way that it has been going?

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that security is a very complex matter. We all know that terrorists' movements are not restricted to Canada and the U.S. They move all around the world.

We have confidence. Canada is trying to update and improve the many different aspects of security. I know that the CCRA will receive $87 million to update and improve our system. Our intention is to improve the system for customs and at the border. I have full confidence that the RCMP and CSIS will do so.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I have risen in the House since the resumption of parliamentary business, I wish to greet my fellow citizens of Joliette. It is because of their concerns that I intervene in the debate on Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act.

I note that the aim of Bill S-23 is to modernize customs administration. I think we should have another look at some of the objectives the minister of revenue and officials noted as underlying the amendment of the Customs Act.

The first part is intended to modernize the customs administration by providing for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada. Second, it provides for streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information.

The bill also provides for monetary penalties in respect of designated contraventions. There are a whole series of amendments to the Customs Act and to other related acts.

It is important to take another look at the objectives of the bill, because we must make sure that it meets the objectives set out by the minister and the officials. These objectives are in response to the government's commitment to modernize the management of borders, to reduce legal activities and threats to public security and to raise confidence levels of exporters and individuals travelling abroad.

Does the bill meet these objectives? This is what we would like to know. Obviously, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for international trade, I am extremely sensitive to everything that affects the flow of trade. Faster processing at the border clearly has a significant impact on our ability to export to the United States and around the world. In addition, as concerns imports, it is vital our companies be in a position to respond to customer demand and to have the resources, be they natural resources, machinery, technology or individual expertise, at the right time.

In principle, therefore, we do not oppose the bill, nor are we opposed to the desire to modernize our customs system, since the volume of transborder shipments now exceeds $500 billion and over 100 million travellers enter or leave Canada annually.

As I mentioned, we agree in principle with the bill's objectives. The Bloc Quebecois will therefore be voting in favour of this bill at second reading.

However, I must emphasize that there are shortcomings in the bill, which must be corrected before we will give our final approval, before the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

There are four problems: the first has to do with security; the second with fair treatment of individuals and companies; the third with the resources earmarked for customs services generally; and the fourth with mail searches.

As was mentioned, the purpose of modernizing our customs system is to expedite the movement of passengers. Another purpose is to broaden accelerated licence programs, such as Canpass, so that companies identified as being low risk can take advantage of reserved border crossing lanes without having to undergo the usual questioning from customs officers.

These two programs raise some very legitimate concerns—and I think that after the events of September 11, we have a responsibility to be concerned—about security. Furthermore, what regulations will be introduced to provide a framework for putting these very laudable principles into practice?

These regulations are extremely important. I know that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot raised this point on Friday; unfortunately, the present Liberal government has a tendency to favour using statutes as blank canvases for regulations, as the Minister of National Revenue put it. The result is that parliamentarians are deprived of the full information they need to make informed decisions.

This case is no exception, since the number of regulations set out in the act is not only significant in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Clause 11.1 (3) reads as follows:

The Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) prescribing classes of persons who may be authorized to present themselves in alternative manners;

(b) respecting alternative manners of presentation;

(c) respecting the requirements and conditions that are to be met before authorizations may be issued;

(d) respecting the terms and conditions of authorizations;

(e) respecting the amendment, suspension, renewal, cancellation or reinstatement of authorizations; and

(f) respecting fees or the manner of determining fees to be paid for authorizations.

As we can see, the bill sets out a principle, but we know absolutely nothing, at this point in time, about how this principle will be applied. What means will be used, what methods and criteria will determine those who stand to benefit from this privileged treatment? Will these regulations guarantee a high level of safety without compromising the steady flow of trade that we require? We do not know this.

As long as we do not know this, we cannot comment on the substance of the bill, despite the fact that we support the principle.

It is the same thing when it comes to fairness. We know that these accelerated permit programs will give the businesses that have access to these permits an advantage over their competitors. We would not like this system and these programs to become a new way to help friends of the government. We would not want people to benefit enormously from this privilege, because it is just that, a privilege, and not a right.

Once again, we need to know what criteria the government will use to determine who will be eligible for these permits, and who will not. As long as there are no regulations, we are unable to judge the substance of the bill, again, even though we agree with the objectives being pursued.

Therefore, if we do not have the regulations, we will not be able to vote for the bill at third reading. As I mentioned earlier, the minister himself described the bill as a blank canvas. We do not want a blank canvas, we want the whole picture before agreeing to support bill S-23.

Moreover, we are not the only ones to wonder about, have concerns about, this blank canvas Bill S-23 represents. For example, Bob Armstrong of the Canadian importers and exporters association, said the following before the committee:

Although we are very supportive of the concepts of the action plan, the association is not without its concerns and reservations when it comes to the implementation of the programs, such as the Administrative Monetary Penalty System, AMPS, and the Customs Self Assessment initiative, CSA. There are inequities in the proposals that we have seen so far and there is not yet an operating plan available to ascertain what the actual impact of AMPS will be. There is much verbal discussion. Everything is still in a draft format so we do not know entirely.

That is exactly our impression today.

Also appearing before the committee was the president of the Canadian Society of Customs Brokers, who said:

There is still work to be done. We must see the proposed regulations. We must better understand the systems changes that will be used to monitor infractions and performance.

That, I think, summarizes very well what we are asking of the minister and the government. We need regulations so that we may have a debate that is not only calm, but also democratic. Having only half or one-quarter of the information will not let us get a proper idea of the effects of this bill.

So, in order to have a clearer idea of the balance between security and fluidity of exchanges, between equity and fluidity, we want to see these regulations.

There was a third element, which I had mentioned at the start, in addition to security and equity: the government's commitment to injecting the necessary resources. Regardless of what the minister and the government may feel, reorganization of the system, using new technologies and pertinent information must not put us in a position where we cannot take advantage of savings in injecting new financial and human resources in order to ensure that our borders are indeed being respected, and our regulations and legislation as well.

Again, we are not the only ones to think so and I am quoting Bob Armstrong, the President of the Canadian importers and exporters association, who said:

Above all, what the Canadian business world expects from a customs action plan is accuracy, simplicity and profitability.

We feel that these goals will be achieved in the long term but, unfortunately, because of the lack of funding, this could take longer than the agency thinks. This is our other message. We hope that in the future the Government of Canada will provide adequate funding to its customs agency, so that its productivity can be as high as possible.

We should get a commitment from both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue that the necessary resources to implement the act--which we hope will be improved on--will indeed be provided to ensure the administration of this legislation and the safety of Canadians and Quebecers.

One last thing I mentioned at the beginning, along with safety, fairness and the providing of the necessary resources, is the opening of mail. This is not something new. We cannot support this part of the bill. Last spring, when it was learned that employees at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency were opening mail, it created an uproar in our democratic society, and rightly so. At the time, the privacy commissioner even made the following comment:

The fact remains that the opening up and the reading of mail without a legal warrant or consent are violations of privacy and are most disturbing.

Canada is a free and democratic country in which the opening up of our mail by the government is an extremely strong symbolism. Therefore it must be used only with the greatest—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan--Shuswap on a point of order.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On an issue of this importance I find it very strange that the House does not have quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

As we now have quorum, debate resumes.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. I am happy to see that not only can the number of loaves be multiplied, but that, in the House, the number of Liberals can be multiplied.

I was mentioning a final aspect of the bill, which we cannot support, and that is the examination of mail. I pointed out that the privacy commissioner had intervened, last spring, to criticize this. The current law permits the opening of mailings of over 30 grams in weight. Thirty grams represents a few sheets of paper. This situation, as I indicated, has already been criticized.

Instead of limiting the right of officials to conduct such examinations, the bill intends to give customs officers greater opportunities to open the mail of Canadians and Quebecers.

This amendment is found at clause 99.1 of the bill:

(4) Subsection 99(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(c.1) at any time up to the time of exportation, examine any mail that is to be exported and, subject to this section, open or cause to be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains any goods the exportation of which is prohibited, controlled or regulated under any Act of Parliament, and take samples of anything contained in such mail in reasonable amounts.

As we can see, this significantly broadens the procedure that already exists under the current act. When she testified before the Senate committee, which was looking at this specific clause, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, Mrs. Dumont, said:

We are very concerned by the provisions of Bill S-23 that seek to significantly broaden the powers of the government regarding the opening and examination of mail. More specifically, we are concerned about the erosion of the right of Canadians to privacy and of solicitor-client privilege.

So, as I mentioned at the outset, we support in principle the objectives of Bill S-23. However, we will not be able to support it at third reading, unless a number of conditions are met, particularly as regards the tabling of regulations that would allow us to get a better idea of the balance between safety and the smooth movement of goods and people, so as to be sure, upon looking at these regulations, that individuals and businesses will be treated fairly and that we have a commitment on the part of the federal government that adequate funding will be provided to the customs agency and, finally, that the provisions allowing for the opening of mail will be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, if these changes are not made, we will have no choice but to vote against Bill S-23. However, I am convinced--and the minister already seems to be receptive--that, by third reading, such regulations will have been drafted and discussed, and the most problematic aspects of the opening of mail will have been eliminated.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression from the member's comments that his greatest concern about what is in the bill deals with the issue of privacy. It does reflect on the content of the bill per se.

I am curious as to what the member might think about the amendment that was put forward by the Alliance dealing with the issue of terrorism and the freedom of movement between peoples south of the border. How would he go about securing this continent in a way that would be acceptable to Mexico, Canada and the United States?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I have not had an opportunity to examine the Alliance's amendments in detail.

It is clear to us that we must work collectively to find a balance between the security of Canadians and Quebecers crossing the border and the necessary fluidity of commercial transactions.

In a context of free trade with the United States and Mexico, if it were to take several hours or days to clear goods at the border, we would lose the advantages these agreements were designed to produce.

From this perspective, there is no easy solution. It is also clear that this cannot simply be left up to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. There is a whole series of other conditions. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois spoke about them during the special debate on the events of September 11. Canada in particular must assume its responsibilities with respect to world peace and the development of underdeveloped, or developing, nations, and ensure that the laws are actually respected.

With regard to the use of technologies, the bill proposes that the necessary resources be made available to ensure that these laws are respected. I think that the comments we have heard from those representing groups such as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, or exporters, indicate that, as we speak, we do not have the resources necessary to enforce this law, even with all its shortcomings.

A law using additional new technologies and information will require resources. In this regard, we are waiting for the government to make a firm commitment during this debate.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's response to the content of the bill. I will address my next question to one of his concern about the bill and not the Alliance amendment. The Alliance amendment basically deals with security matters.

In the member's comments he made reference to the movement of manufactured goods between Canada and the United States. I have had the opportunity, as have other members in the House, to examine how goods actually move through the Canadian side to the American side of the border and vice versa. The Americans have stepped forward with some very state of the art detection equipment where they no longer need to tear everything apart inside a container or a truck to see what is in it. They have a device that can x-ray the truck to determine if it contains people, goods or other questionable goods, such as drugs.

When I was last at the border it was with the member for Wild Rose. We were very much aware that one in twenty trucks would be checked at the border but when the line-up became too long some would not be checked at all. They would just drive around checkpoints and away they would go. There were times when the police would chase one or two of these units but needless to say many got away without any check.

With the situation as it is today, with border security tightening up, it is not necessarily tightening up for manufactured goods going back and forth but for the threat of the wrong kind of people coming through the border points. They may slip south or they may slip north. If we do not deal with the security side of the matter our manufacturing side may get hurt too because of long line-ups and the demand from our friends to the south for restricting that movement until everything is checked to their satisfaction.

What should Canada do that would assist or augment what exists presently in developing a better security arrangement to move manufactured goods through that border point?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we agree on the objectives of this bill in this connection.

Indeed, all shippers, all truckers, all manufacturers, cannot be treated in the same way. Clearly, a number of them, because of their past performance, their reputation, their credibility I would say, represent less of a risk than others who are less well known, because they have been in the business a shorter time or have had fewer contacts with Canada.

In my opinion, we cannot therefore be opposed in principle to this idea of having a concentration of resources toward companies or individuals which are considered to be a higher risk than others.

Now the question is whether we are going to differentiate between a high risk company, a medium risk company and a low risk one. While I agree in principle, I must say that I do not know the answer for the moment, since we do not have the regulations.

It seems to me that if the minister's approach is a serious one, he must introduce the mechanisms by which the department will indeed determine this and the method it will use to ensure that companies or individuals deemed to be low risk are indeed that—even if there will always be a minimum of checks to be carried out at the border itself—and will be differentiated from those of medium and high risk as far as security is concerned—and I share the hon. member's concerns—but also as a matter of equity.

A company that benefits from this special border-crossing right will have a competitive advantage over another company. This can become a very easy way to encourage undesirable illegal traffic. The very principle of a bill that is aimed at risk management at source, that is with the shipper, the manufacturer or the passenger, is an interesting one. That said, as long as we do not have the regulations, the principle remains one on which we cannot form an opinion.

That is why I have already said that, without the regulations, we will not be in a position to vote in favour of Bill S-23 at third reading.

Points of Order

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we resume debate, I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, which is presently before the House.

The amendment, moved by the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona, is in the form of a reasoned amendment. A reasoned amendment, according to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , page 638, is one which “--allows a member to state the reasons why he or she opposes second reading of a bill--”.

Concerning such an amendment, Marleau and Montpetit states further, at page 639, “It must be relevant and relate strictly to the bill being considered”.

According to the summary of the bill, Bill S-23 seeks in part to amend the Customs Act by “--providing for the expedited movement of persons and goods into Canada--”.

The hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona objects to the second reading of the bill because, and I quote, “...the principle of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities”.

Marleau and Montpetit also states at page 639:

A reasoned amendment may be declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill...

The Chair has examined the amendment very carefully in the context of the purposes of the bill. I am satisfied that it does not contravene any of our rules or the usual practice of the House with respect to reasoned amendments. The amendment is in order.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to hear that the amendment is in order. I certainly hope members of the government will pay close attention to the reasoning behind that.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-23 today. In essence, there are some good aspects to the bill. Who could argue with measures that would allow for pre-approval of travellers and reduction at the border of waiting times for Canadian bound trucks. At the time of the production of the bill, not a lot of people could, but that was prior to 9.30 a.m., September 11.

In light of these tragic events, the principle of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address the national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.

The world as we know it has changed. The Liberal government should be taking this time to revisit and review all its legislative proposals. This has become the most important issue of our time.

I want to take a moment to thank our frontline customs officers, especially those who, in the aftermath of September 11, have been working around the clock, checking thousands of travellers seeking entrance into Canada. They have done a tremendous job with limited human, technological and financial resources. We really need to take a close look at what is going on.

I had the pleasure of visiting a number of the ports of entry across the western part of the country during the summer. The morale is very low, and there are a lot of good reasons why it is.

I will give an example of a letter I received from one of our frontline customs officers. He said “In light of the recent terrifying events in the United States, I feel it is time that we demand my employer, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, take the steps needed to equip me to do my job. I am now more afraid than ever to do my job.

Allow me to explain the current law enforcement related equipment that I have been issued. I have a pair of handcuffs and a bulletproof vest. I need pepper spray, a baton, a sidearm to do my job properly and protect the people of Canada and myself”.

He goes on to say “At present should I come into contact with a violent subject, including one who is threatening my life, I am to allow him to enter Canada and I am to contact the RCMP to deal with him or her”. This has to be the most ridiculous instruction that has ever been given to any law enforcement officer in history.

The letter continues “If at my location I release the subject, the RCMP would never find him. They are too far away and are so poorly staffed here there is no way they could contact the person. Furthermore, what would the taxpaying public think if they found out that a customs inspector just allowed a dangerous individual to come right into Canada, offering absolutely no resistance whatsoever.

I feel that the problem with customs is that we are a law enforcement agency being managed by people with no law enforcement background. They are more concerned with image and public and business convenience than they are law enforcement. We here are the front and the first line of defence for Canada. I for one would like the equipment to do my job with more competence”.

He continues on to say “If you would like examples of the image statement, let me inform you of the following:

Neither our shoulder patch nor our badge say officer or inspector, they simply say, Canada Customs. Our bullet-proof vests have a reflective strip on the back that also reads the same.

I looked at my U.S. counterparts this week during this time of extra security and their vests read in bold print “Police U.S. Immigration”. My silly lettering is a mere three quarters of an inch, a stunning example of image”.

He went on to say: “Presently, our officers at large ports have been issued pepper spray and batons, however, we at places where we work alone have not been issued these tools. This is an example of the backward thinking of the agency. They have issued the safety equipment to places where there is always another officer available for assistance, however, where I work alone, I am defenseless.

I would be happy to discuss this matter or any other customs related matter with you at any time. Just a quick request though. Please keep in mind that my agency is very heavily controlled by the Privacy Act and we have been discouraged from speaking to members of parliament. Please, in the interest of my career, could you please allow me my anonymity. Unfortunately we work in an environment where speaking out is very strongly discourage”.

At a time of this tragic event, the fellows and women who put their lives on the line at the borders are being controlled. They are being told not to talk to members of parliament, especially if they are from the opposition or they will be in serious trouble. The same thing happens in the penitentiaries with prison guards and security officers. They are told not to not talk to MPs. They discourage that, especially if they are members of the opposition because they might talk about the very things that this officer is talking about.

Talk about low morale. He is fearful of losing his career and being fired because he speaks out. These people who are on the front line should be speaking out louder than ever.

I recall the visit the member for Calgary Northeast and I had on a trip to Fort Erie on the border. We saw exactly what he was referring to in terms of free flow of traffic. We remember him standing on the edge of the bridge looking at the boats. We asked the officers what was in the boats that kept coming to Canada. They did not know. However, they said that if it looked a certain way it was probably cigarettes. If it looked another way it was probably whiskey, or guns or it was smuggling people. They did not know because they had no ability or resources to stop them and check to see what they were bringing.

The member for Calgary Northeast and I saw with our own eyes.

Who receives them when they land on the shores of this great country? Nobody. When I went to certain border crossings and talked to the customs officer, they said that. However, they said if I wanted to take a trip with them, we could go 200 yards to the east or 200 yards to the west and they could show me all kinds of trails of comings and goings because there were no officers.

The bill must not be brought forward at this time because, as our amendment says, it is totally obsolete. It does not address the needs of our time.

Last week the revenue and immigration minister attempted to put a principled plan in place, but the Globe and Mail published a confidential internal government bulletin issued to our border guards regarding risk assessment. Instead of these ministers immediately announcing an investigation was underway, they decided to waffle over the political correctness of racial profiling, and the Globe and Mail was busy defending its civil liberties. How can Canadians be confident that any other confidential documents are not going to be leaked during this critical time in our history?

There should have been an investigation announced immediately regarding this confidential crisis type information being leaked.

We are talking about law enforcement. Maybe it is time to take a look at the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency bureaucracy and those who work in it. They are not law enforcement officials. Perhaps this whole area should be taken out of that portfolio and placed in the portfolio of the solicitor general or justice department. They have the criteria and the knowledge of law enforcement, whereas Customs Canada has no knowledge or experience with it.

Why is Revenue Canada now suddenly the body of people who will look after the major security of our country and our borders? I am afraid it does not make a lot of sense to me.

I will speak about another decision the revenue minister made this past week, which was a good one. The decision was made to suspend the Canpass program for motorists, small planes and boats entering the country. The program allowed prescreened motorists automatic border crossing and the pilots of small planes to land at Canadian airports after reporting to customs by telephone. The program was cancelled for security concerns. It will not be long, though, before this program is back up and running. How can we ever trust this honour system again?

Private aircrafts with less than 15 passengers are free to land at any airport, without customs inspections, merely by calling a central phone number to report their arrival. To make matters worse, the itineraries of these planes are considered confidential information by NAV CAN. Therefore, customs truly is working blind.

Does it honestly make sense to the minister of customs that we do not search all international flights? This mindset has to change. The world as we know it has changed.

Let me recount another story, with which I am sure most members are familiar. It was a story in the Windsor Star of September 18. This is an example of how far we have to go. It states:

“Have your ID ready”, Al Williams barked as the chartered bus emerged from the Windsor-Detroit tunnel and approached the U.S. customs.

Williams, a retired Daimler Chrysler worker, was looking forward to the Sept. 9 game between the Tigers and the Blue Jays at Comerica Park and he didn't want some bozo who couldn't find his birth certificate making them late.

He needn't have worried. The bus, one of five chartered from Transit Windsor by the CAW, wouldn't be going through the border routine so familiar to Windsor residents. Step off. Show ID to the bored officer. Hop back on. Nope. There would be no eyeball contact with a pistol-packing U.S. customs officer this time. No contact, period.

“Nobody came on board. The bus never stopped. They sailed right through and went straight to Comerica Park. What the (heck) is going on here?”

Williams had heard all the media chatter about erasing the border, but he couldn't believe it had gone so far as the junking of all controls on entry to the U.S.

He was especially intrigued because there were strangers on the bus who didn't strike him as being either baseball fans or CAW retirees. Curious, he looked for them at the ballpark. No sign of them. If they went to the game, they didn't sit with the others.

Two days later our world was turned upside down with the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and an angry Williams found himself thinking about how a mere baseball ticket had been a hassle-free passport to America.

The story doesn't end there. On the way back, several young males Williams had never seen before pounded on the door of the bus as it neared the tunnel. The door opened and they filed aboard.

Waived through.

Back in Windsor, A Canadian customs officer stepped up and asked if anyone was a U.S. citizen. Nobody responded. The bus was waived through and as it left the tunnel compound the young men were dropped off at their request on the nearest street corner.

The incident left Williams scratching his head. How could the gatekeepers in both countries be so lax? How could U.S. officials let people anonymously enter America just because they have a baseball ticket? How could Canadian officials let hitchhikers, who might or might not have been residents of Canada, enjoy a free and unaccounted for ride into this country?

In a lot of ways, both the U.S. and Canada have been living in a fool's paradise. I do not intend to be a scaremonger, but I truly believe the legislation must be reviewed and strengthened. This is a pre-September 11 piece of legislation. This is a post-September 11 world and the legislation must be changed quickly. It must reflect the need for top security at our borders. It must be a high priority.

We have witnessed and felt the hurt of what can happen with a group or network of people who have no regard for human life and who do not really care about rules and regulations. For us to sit, be cautious and say we must have a balanced approach is foolish. When we introduce legislation, the security of the country must be a major component. We must equip the people who guard our borders with the tools necessary to the job and remember that they are a law enforcement agency. They are necessary to protect the lives, property and welfare of all Canadians and we must treat them as such.

The day might come very soon when I will make some kind a motion and recommend that the government pull this organization out of Customs Canada and give it to a law enforcement agency that has some knowledge of what we need to do. We need to stop treating them with kid gloves. We need to stop looking for excuses and causes.

In the war upon our neighbours to the south thousands of lives have been lost. It is no time to sit around and be foolish with pieces of legislation like the bill before us today.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's words make me think of babies and bath water.

He talked about one of the most successful borders in the world. It has been in that position for decades and decades. It has been a remarkably successful border not because there is barbed wire, trenches, machine guns and minefields all along it, but because in a sense it has been open.

The member spent all his time talking about arming the police, meaning the customs officers, along the border. I do not want undesirables coming into Canada and I do not want us to send undesirables to the United States but to think of arming that wonderful productive border, it has been productive in economic terms.

Think of how the two economies have benefited from the border as it was. Think of how it has been in cultural terms, the exchanges, what the Americans have gained from us and what we have gained from the Americans culturally. Think what it would mean to a number of families. I would guess there would be some families in this room, including my own, who have relatives on the two sides of it. With reasonable security, over the years those families have been able to visit each other, to go back and forth for each other's Thanksgiving and that kind of thing.

I ask the member to think about this. These are very difficult times. People in Canada and in the United States are facing very difficult times. We are all upset. One of our jobs here is to show real leadership, which brings me back to babies and bath water. Does the member really want to throw the baby out with the bath water and make it a fortified border, ruining commerce, and social and cultural exchanges, or does he want us to proceed in some reasonable fashion? Let us by all means fill in the gaps, the problems that exist, but let us hope that in the end it will stay the largest unguarded frontier in the world.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that does not surprise me at all coming from that side of the House. The status quo seems to be satisfactory because it has worked so well. I agree that before September 11 that was the case but because of the events of September 11, it is now time to seriously look at what we can do to secure our countries from terrorism. We need to keep up the flow of trade and those things that have been so good for both countries for a long time. My point is that this legislation will not do that. It is missing a very important principle. It has not dealt with it at all.

I have crossed the border probably as often as if not more than anybody. I lived 35 years in one country and then moved here. I am glad that Canada is my home now. At the border I like to see things flowing freely and with security. I would like to see the border as open as much as possible. What does not make sense to me, and the member certainly did not mention it, is what we will do in the meantime now that we know the capabilities of terrorist organizations. They exist and they are a definite threat to the innocent lives of thousands of people.

Is the member suggesting that we do not tighten up things, that we do not listen and that we do not put a better defensive system at the border? The guards themselves are asking for a better system.

Of course, the member probably does not know much about law enforcement and he would not dare listen to someone who has done it for a number of years. However, from his other comments it is easy to judge that he must never have been confronted with having to enforce a law that is being broken.

I am sorry but this is a time when we cannot play Mickey Mouse and pussyfoot around with such an important issue. I would love to see things flowing freely and openly at the border. However, we have to do a better job of making sure that those who are coming into one country or the other are not coming in for the purpose of destruction. We are not doing that with the legislation that is before us today. Now is the day to do it.

I can guarantee that the border points going south into America have quickly changed in structure and attitude as a result of the events of September 11. We need to see what is happening. We need to understand why it is being done. We must break the network of terrorism in this world and we must do it collectively. We can do it as long as the attitude that I just heard changes to some degree, and it will have to, like it or not.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his comments. It concerns me that if we continue with this reasonable approach to crossing the border which we have historically been able to maintain, we are in danger of losing the contacts in the United States that we already enjoy.

These people are serious. I look at the president of the United States when he says that there is no room for negotiation and no room for discussion on this issue. When the president says this is the way it is going to be, I believe him. I believe he means what he says.

It seems to me that we do have some choices. I do not want an armed border either. I enjoy freely crossing into the United States and back again. I have always had that pleasure at the border. I want it maintained. I want my colleagues in the House to know that.

It seems to me the choice is to be sure that nobody goes into the United States who will harm the American people or they are going to look after the job for us. It is going to be an armed border whether we like it or not.

It seems we have a choice for our ports and airports and those who would come in from other destinations outside North America. If we can assure that those who come to our country can go to the United States safely, our relations with the United States will be much simpler.

Having made those comments, I would like to ask the member for Wild Rose for his comments about how he sees the necessity of maintaining the security of Canada as well as the security of the United States in our immigration or cross-border policies.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that a tragic event has to make us all stop and think about the situation. If the government decides to be firm and insists that for the safety and welfare of all citizens on both sides of the border things are going to have to be toughened up, there will be things we are not accustomed to in terms of policing our borders to protect people as best we can. In order to accomplish that we have to reflect once again on the tragic events of September 11. We must reflect on the determination, the capability, the lack of care for human life that is obvious in the mind of a terrorist. We must take all measures possible to stop a terrorist.

When I spoke about this the other day, what did I get from a Liberal? He said that we have to be cautious and take a balanced approach, that we need to get to the root cause. He said that we should not be like the member for Wild Rose who wants to jump on his horse, grab a posse and stamp them out.

If you suckers keep that attitude, I tell you, we will be in a lot of trouble.

[The Deputy Speaker]

To the member who last spoke, no one questions the strong views that can be held on a very important subject as is being debated in the House today. However, the member is a very experienced parliamentarian and I know he would normally make all of his comments through the Chair. I would seek his co-operation in being a little more judicious.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair. I had a memory lapse as to where I should direct my comments. I think those members know how I feel about it and I will leave it at that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his comments. I am sure everyone knows how everyone else feels. Not to take anything away from the importance of the subject matter, I will now resume questions or comments.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of the frontline research that the member for Wild Rose did as far as our customs and border systems are concerned. Over the past 15 years anyone taking a masters of business administration at any good school of management would get into total quality management. It states that if quality is improved then results are improved. It involves having a system which is continuously improved to get better results.

The system is improved by eliminating fear among the frontline workers. Another way of getting continuous improvement is by getting meaningful input from frontline workers. One thing that should not be done under that theory is dictating or ordering results. Results have to be managed and a team has to be in place to achieve that.

I detected a great deal of fear among our frontline workers in the customs department. The fear goes so far that they feel they cannot speak to a member of parliament about the problems they are experiencing.

Any modern management system in the private sector would say that these are signs of a system that is not working. It is based on fear and commanding results, and it does not work.

If we want a quality system then we have to throw that out and find a different way of doing things. This does not have the signs of a quality system. Would the member for Wild Rose have any comments on that matter?

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is certain. There is fear in the people who work at our borders and in our security systems. I am very proud of them and I take my hat off to them. When they explain to me the difficulties they are facing I get vibes that their fear is not for themselves but for the security of the country and its inhabitants. They are dedicated to doing a job that they know has to be done.

They are simply asking to be listened to in terms of how to do the best job they can. They are no longer interested in getting guidelines and information sheets from bureaucracies that do not deal with national security, law enforcement or those kinds of tools of the trade. It is a revenue agency.

It is time to get some guidelines from those who work in the field of law enforcement and national security. Let the guidelines come from and work through them. They should be given the freedom to openly discuss with members of parliament how they can best do their jobs and be allowed other opportunities they may have.

It is shameful and discouraging that so many of the people working at the ground zero level in our protection, security and customs services are instructed not to speak with MPs, especially members of the opposition. That is a crime in itself.