Debates of Oct. 24th, 2005

U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chair, making reference to whether or not other members in the House are here is totally unacceptable. The member is suggesting that the government somehow does not have representation here when the hon. member knows full well it is extremely proportional to what the composition of the House is. We do not make reference to other members of Parliament and certainly not their attendance here this evening at such an important debate, which the government takes seriously.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Chair, it is time for the government side to regain its composure.

The fact is that this initiative is very hurtful to Canada. Three weeks ago when the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary meetings took place in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, every Republican and every Democrat from the United States of America at that meeting told us that the legislation was ill considered and not well thought out. Believe it or not, every Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc member agreed that this is not good legislation, that it will be hurtful to both economies.

We have heard the numbers. There are 300,000 individual crossings a day between the two countries, 300,000 a day. The one industry we focused on was the tourism industry. We can say with accuracy that it is going to cost the tourism industry $2 billion and counting the first year.

What they are talking about in terms of requirements means that 250 million Americans will have to have a passport or some other document within the next year and a half. Thirty million Canadians will require the same document, as will 100 million Mexicans. How the Prime Minister could have missed this one is beyond my belief.

Every day in the House, Mr. Chair, and you have gone through this time and time again in your position in the chair, we have routine proceedings. During routine proceedings when statements by ministers are called, Mr. Chair, do you recall the Prime Minister of Canada actually standing to inform Parliament on this issue? Has any other minister?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we could go through a roster of ministers but the Prime Minister is the guy in charge and not one of them has ever been on his or her feet in the House to inform Parliament. This debate should have taken place a year ago.

Is that not the problem with the Liberal government? For the last 12 years going on 13 the Liberals never know when to say yes or no to the Americans. This is one time the Prime Minister should have said, “This is wrong. It is going to hurt your economy and it is going to hurt ours”, and be heard on it. He was in New York two weeks ago. The New York power brokers were listening. In fact, he met with the editorial board of The New York Times and did not even mention this issue.

That goes back to the infamous meeting between the Prime Minister and the President that did not happen. There is no evidence out there that they ever met on this issue. I would ask the government member who stated that to retract it and to apologize to the House and the Canadian people. The government has fallen asleep on this file. It is going to wreak havoc on the Canadian economy. We are asking it to do something and to do it fast.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciated the comments by the member for New Brunswick Southwest. He has worked hard on the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association.

We have had a number of opportunities to take about border issues and also reflect upon what his area has had to go through to procure a new crossing versus my area which even today is in a quagmire.

It is amazing. The most important border crossing in North America is controlled by a private American citizen who has a billion dollars annually in revenue, according to Forbes magazine, and is looking to consolidate all of the customs people on the American side and the government provides $13 million in subsidy per year for those customs people.

I would like to ask the hon. member about the impact on tourism that he thinks this will have across the country.

Back in 2003 there were 577,000 jobs directly related to tourism. This is going to have a profound impact on the hotel and restaurant industries. I would like to get his reflections on that, not only in terms of the major urban centres but also in terms of some of the smaller border crossings that still rely on people who go back and forth across the border daily and who may not necessarily cross the border any more because they will have to have a passport.

It is important to note that it is not just Canadians who will have to have a passport. Americans will have to have a passport to get back into their country.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Chair, I cannot relate this to jobs, but we could do the math. Two billion dollars would be the cost to the tourism industry the first year of implementation. If we do the math, it is simply thousands of jobs lost if this initiative continues on the path that we think it is going, unless the Government of Canada can stand up and help us change the minds of the Americans.

We have all mentioned the convention business and so on, but one of the things I want to mention is that this country of ours is pretty complicated. It is a big country and the border situations that will be faced by individual provinces and individual members of Parliament are pretty unique. We all have our own personal examples.

One example I want to use of how it will have an impact on the people that we represent is the area of Campobello Island. Campobello Island is in the Bay of Fundy and can only be accessed by travelling through mainland United States.

I think I am correct in claiming that I am the only member of Parliament who has to travel through a foreign land to get to part of his riding, which is Campobello Island. It is about an hour and a half by road to get to Campobello Island. It is connected by bridge to mainland United States. We could get there by boat but it is mostly impracticable for most of the year. We have done it, but most of the time we rely, as every citizen would, on going into mainland United States. It would mean that every citizen on that island would require a passport to go for basic necessities like gasoline. There are no gasoline stations on that island. There is no hospital on that island. For most of the drugs and medical services the people have to go to the mainland.

The situation could arise where in the middle of night a 95-year-old woman who is deathly sick in the nursing home on Campobello Island had to go to the hospital in Machias, Maine. How would she get across the border without a passport if this is implemented? How many 95-year-old citizens have passports?

Another example would be school teens. Campobello Island takes great pride in its basketball teams. Great basketball players have gone through the system on Campobello Island. If a basketball team is travelling to some other school in Canada, every one of those students, all the players and the coaches, including the bus driver, would need a passport to get off of the island to go through mainland United States to get to some other part of Canada and back home.

This has not been thought through. That is why the Prime Minister of Canada has to stand up and be heard on this issue, and heard very strongly.

Here is another example. If American citizens left the United States and got into Canada without a passport, how would they get back home? They would be refugees in Canada, Americans unable to get back into their home states. This is something that American senators and congressmen actually talk about. Think about it. One of the most prominent senators in the United States, Hillary Clinton, the wife of a former president and who I think wants to be president herself, admits that this kind of slipped by them. In fact, most of the senators and congressmen who actually voted for this legislation now openly admit that they made a huge mistake.

I think it is up to us to point out to the Americans that this has to be fixed. Canada is important to the Americans. It is time that the Prime Minister understood that. It is time that he went down to Washington immediately and talked with those parliamentarians, with those senators and congressmen in the United States. I used the term “parliamentarians”, but obviously it is a congressional system, a presidential government.

However, the truth is that the Prime Minister has to take this seriously. We have seven more days before the comment period actually expires. We had better make our case as strongly and forcibly as we can to the United States of America and be strong enough to stand up and say that this will not work, and to please reconsider it. We should provide some suggestions to see if we can do it together and make our economies work.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chair, there was a meeting that the member for New Brunswick Southwest may have missed, but judging from his comments today here in the House, he has probably missed a lot of things. It was the meeting in Waco, Texas, where the Prime Minister of Canada met with President George Bush and President Vicente Fox of Mexico. The whole purpose of the meeting was to discuss security and document integrity. Out of that came the security and prosperity initiative. I was not at the meeting, but it would be a fairly good assumption that this matter we are debating tonight came up in the context of that meeting.

The member's colleague from Niagara talked about some of these work refusals that have been happening at the border. Today we had some more. The reality is that every time this has happened, an independent occupational health committee or Labour Canada has ruled that there is actually no risk posed to these border officers.

I am not a labour lawyer, but I am wondering when this happens repeatedly, is there not a cause to be made to the Labour Relations Board that this proposition has been tested time and time again. There is no security risk to these officers based on an independent assessment. At what time would the Labour Relations Board take that into account and say enough is enough? I do not know if the member opposite has practised labour law, but could he perhaps comment on that?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Chair, fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, so I did not practice labour law and everyone is probably sighing a breath of relief that I probably have not and did not. The fact is that we have to focus on the issue tonight. The issue tonight is on this passport initiative, this western hemisphere travel initiative.

We do not want to get off the subject. This is just poorly thought out legislation. When the member talks about the meeting that took place between Mr. Bush, Mr. Fox and our Prime Minister, that legislation was already passed. I have never seen any report where the Prime Minister of Canada pushed that heavily in that agenda, but I could be wrong on that one. We will have to wait and see what the Prime Minister has to say about it. I am sure that he will show up probably later on this evening and have a word to say about that issue.

However, the Liberals have sadly let Canadians down on this issue and have missed the boat. Unfortunately, we are going to pay a heavy price as a country in terms of our trading relations with the Americans unless the Prime Minister takes this issue seriously and makes some serious interventions in Washington with the President of the United States.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the Government of Canada's border security initiatives and more specifically our integrated approach to border management. It is take note debates like this that are useful, where members can present to their constituents that they are very active on these matters and that the government is listening. With the exception of the member for Prince George—Peace River, there has been a lot of constructive comment that the government will be examining, I am sure.

The present government has adopted a strategic position with its U.S. partners, based on initiatives such as the smart border declaration and the more recent North American security and prosperity partnership, in order to continue to make considerable progress toward our common objectives of public safety and economic security.

Ensuring the security of the border is in our mutual best interests. Canada is currently engaged in efforts to enhance and further secure travel documents.

Members opposite talk about inaction. The comment that President Bush made on the steps of the White House did not go unnoticed here in Canada. The statements by Ms. Clinton and by the governor of New York, Mr. Pataki, have not gone unnoticed. There has been a tremendous amount of effort through our consuls general to the United States and also at the officials level to come up with a workable solution to this matter.

As the House knows, the United States introduced legislation referred to as the western hemisphere travel initiative, which is what we are discussing tonight. It will require that all individuals travelling to the U.S., all individuals including U.S. citizens, present a passport or another secure document effective in 2007. I can assure members that the Government of Canada has been consulting stakeholders in Canada and the United States and U.S. government officials at every level on this initiative.

Ultimately, our goal is to keep terrorists and other criminal elements out and allow legitimate trade and travellers to move smoothly across the border. However, we share some of the concerns, as I said, of Senator Hillary Clinton, New York State Governor George Pataki and others in the United States about how the western hemisphere travel initiative is moving ahead too quickly and without the proper consideration of other options.

This issue is much too important to rush through. The border operates in a real time environment, providing service at air, sea and land ports of entry 24 hours a day, seven days a week at some of its busiest locations. This enables us to deal more quickly and effectively with trade and security concerns here at home and abroad. In real terms, this meant that last year, the Canada Border Services Agency processed close to 95 million travellers. This means 71 million people and 37 million vehicles by highway, 20 million by air, and 12 million commercial releases. Many Canadian industries now participate in programs to streamline the border clearance process for pre-approved, low risk travellers and goods.

I would like to briefly outline some of the excellent programs that both enhance safety and security at the U.S.-Canada border and ensure that commerce and trade are not jeopardized. As members will see, there is a long tradition of working together with our counterparts and I am sure this will continue as we cooperate on ensuring the security of documents used by those crossing the Canada-U.S. border.

First of all, the free and secure trade program, or FAST, is a harmonized commercial process offered to pre-approved importers, carriers and registered drivers to facilitate clearance into either Canada or the United States with greater speed and certainty. Frequent cross-border travellers can also take advantage of NEXUS, a binational program that both simplifies border transit and reduces wait times.

CANPASS Air has been implemented at seven international airports using iris recognition technology to streamline our travel. CANPASS Air allows its members to expedite their own border clearance quickly and securely. When CANPASS Air was implemented at Vancouver International Airport in July 2003, this was the first time in North America that iris recognition technology was used to facilitate a traveller's border clearance. Now travellers flying into Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary can also clear customs and immigration in the blink of an eye.

This partnership agreement is one more fine example of the close collaboration that exists between Canada and the U.S. to ensure the security and prosperity of our two countries.

These and other accomplishments reflect the multiple border strategy and the effort to interdict high risk travellers and cargo before they arrive in Canada. To that end, we work closely with our partners and deploy mitigation integrity officers overseas. These officers work with airlines and local authorities, share intelligence, detect document fraud and interrupt the flow of illegal migrants, criminals and persons with terrorist links before they board a plane for Canada.

This multilayered approach to smart border management recognizes that the border is more than a single line at which threats must be intercepted. This concept of pushing the border out includes multiple levels of screening with information-gathering at all the checkpoints along the line. Many of our initiatives use advanced technologies that increase the speed and accuracy of identification, so we can quickly process those we know and trust. This lets us focus on high risk arrivals, whether terrorists or criminals, that put our personal and national security at risk and undermine the confidence of our trading partners.

As members can see, our cooperation in these areas has been very successful. We have put in place a range of programs that expedite the passage of pre-cleared travellers and goods, allowing the Canada Border Services Agency and U.S. customs and border protection to focus on high risk cases. A large part of the success of these programs has been the fact that we took the time to evaluate all of the options to ensure that the best one was chosen.

Although I would urge the United States government to reconsider the western hemisphere travel initiative specifically, I cannot stress enough that I share the concerns of our American friends with regard to border security.

We will continue to expand existing programs and plan new initiatives to make it still safer for people and goods to move across the border as well as to coordinate and share information.

The initiatives and examples I have outlined this evening show that the Government of Canada has taken significant measures to keep our borders secure and to ensure economic security and public safety all the while working with our American partners.

As we move forward, key objectives for border security will be making the best use of technology to enhance border security; devising an integrated global enrolment program for North American trusted travellers for travel by air, land and sea to encompass programs such as NEXUS and CANPASS; pushing the borders out to secure North America from threats by further harmonizing systems and processes; collaborating in the development of automated risk assessment systems, tools and methods and improving infrastructure and border processing times.

In the spirit of partnership we believe this is the best way for our two countries to proceed if we wish to improve security and efficiency at the border and if we wish to preserve the unique cross border relationships that are so central to our prosperity. I wish to emphasize that we share the same objectives as the United States. What is up for debate are processes and mechanisms.

In order to optimize risk management and the protection of our citizens, our economy and our society, we must be able to anticipate, and better prepared to handle, any risk or danger that might occur at the border.

Canada and the United States must continue to work together to strengthen the foundations for establishing both identity and citizenship in our respective passport issuance processes. However, we need to ensure that we are choosing the best option to improve both security and the free flow of goods and people at the border. We need to take the time to get this right.

I am aware that many in the House have been very active and engaged on the western hemisphere travel initiative. There has been action at different levels of government at the officials level. I know that many of my colleagues on this side and many colleagues on that side of the House have been talking to U.S. congressmen and congresswomen and senators and other officials in the United States.

I can tell the House that our government is working very actively on this issue. One of the ways I have done this is by facilitating input from my constituents and other Canadians on this initiative to U.S. and Canadian officials.

As some members may know, I sent a letter to all parliamentarians on Monday of last week detailing how members of both the House and the other place could make their views known. I encourage all members to take advantage of the opportunity to apprise officials both here and in the United States of their opinions on how we can best move together to arrive at the best form of travel documentation required for cross border travel.

Given our close history, shared values and numerous successes in managing our border together, I am sure members would agree that we need not sacrifice prosperity at the altar of security.

I would like to emphasize that Canada and the United States have committed to deepen cooperation in North America and in the world, to work bilaterally to address shared priorities, and to continue our close cooperation with Mexico on issues of trilateral importance. This will continue to set the course to ensure the security, prosperity and the quality of life of our citizens.

This issue of travel documentation at the border, however it is resolved, I am hopeful will be the right solution, continuing in the spirit of goodwill and cooperation which has marked our progress on border issues since the 9/11 tragedy.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will be brief because there are at least two other members on the opposition side who would like to ask our Liberal colleague a question.

We heard about some supposed personal interventions that were made on behalf of the Canadian government and Canadians who were concerned about the issue by the Prime Minister to the President of the United States. We have no real proof of that. We will take their word for it. I guess it has actually happened.

The parliamentary secretary has said that he sent out a letter about a week ago. Ironically enough, that letter would have coincided with the request for an emergency debate, not a take note debate, on this very issue by my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest. Suddenly on that very day the parliamentary secretary was prompted to some action and he sent out a letter suggesting that everybody had two weeks to get their comments in. That is the type of leadership we have come to expect from the Liberal government.

The United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is in Canada right now. She is fairly high placed with the administration. Could the parliamentary secretary assure us that when the Prime Minister met with her today he raised this issue? If so, what was the reaction and what was said?

Could he bring some information to the debate tonight? If not, will he at least follow the lead of the opposition yet again and commit to raising it tomorrow? My understanding is she will be around then too.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, my answer to the member for Prince George—Peace River is I have it on pretty good authority that this was on the agenda for the Prime Minister to raise with the Secretary of State from the United States, Condoleezza Rice. I am not privy as to whether that has taken place at this point in time or how the discussions went.

As I said earlier, that the Deputy Prime Minister raised this many months ago with Homeland Security Secretary, Mr. Michael Chertoff. There have been many discussions back and forth.

The letter that I sent, I think he impugns more motive than was there. The member for Prince George—Peace River is not adjacent to a border. However, the members on this side and many members on the other side who are border MPs have engaged on this in a very big way. There is still time for that kind of consultation and those commentaries to come in.

We will be presenting a very strong and unified position when the consultation period ends, if it does end at the end of October, which is the plan right now.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I heard something in my colleague's speech which gave me some discomfort. He said that the government's position right now was to ask the United States to reconsider doing this. That is not very strong given the fact that Ms. Rice is in Ottawa. I imagine that it would be a terrific embarrassment to the Prime Minister to have a take note debate in the Nation's Capital at a time when Ms. Rice is in town on an issue that he did not bother to raise at the table. The member who brought this issue to the floor of the House tonight deserves credit because it puts him in the necessary position of doing something.

Last Saturday in Halifax the Council of State Governments at its regional conference unanimously passed a motion that asked the U.S. to delay the western hemisphere travel initiative until better options could be found. It has come out even stronger than the government.

The government should provide us with a specific strategy with respect to our tourism industry. The government produced a document prior to July which was posted on the Internet. What specific strategies are in place for the tourism industry across the country if this goes through and we suffer significant consequences on the Canadian side as a result of that? What specific items will the government unveil? According to the government, a lot of work has been done on this.

The government has supposedly been discussing this for a number of years and has made representations through different formats. I would only assume then that it would have a back up plan. Where is the blueprint? When is the public going to see the plan? When can I talk to the tourism people from downtown business improvement association about that blueprint and what they can expect? When can I talk to my municipality about what it can expect?

What can the provincial government expect when the casino industry or the bingo industry and the people who rely upon the funds derived from the Americans who come here are affected by this? What about all our restauranteurs? What can they expect from the government to offset the economic hardship that will come as a result of this?

Research is available showing what the effects of this will be or is it all bunk in the Liberal's opinion? Where is the back up? When are we going to see it?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member for Windsor West is more pessimistic than those of us on this side of the House.

There is a process involved here. The government will formally present its views at the end of October, after consulting with stakeholders, including the tourism industry and many other stakeholders in Canada. Prior to that, a conversation will take place between the Deputy Prime Minister and the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary.

There are some issues in play in the sense of needing more time. Different options could be considered other than a passport, but it takes time to evaluate those other options and test them out. I would not want to reveal at this point what the government's formal position will be at the end of this month, but it is under preparation. Time is needed to look at other options beyond passports.

To take the proposition right off the table would be an option as well. We have to be realistic about what the options are. That is why the government has been consulting with stakeholders. That is why the U.S. Consul General of the United States has been making representations in the United States.

If members opposite have some constructive ideas, they should feed them to us and the government will consider them as well.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Chair, I listened with interest and I always look for constructive ideas from the parliamentary secretary.

His has said that the Liberals have established cooperation with United Stated customs and that had been successful, and I am happy for that. They have established good relations with United States customs. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that the government might want to establish good relationships with Canada Customs and Canada Customs border guards? Am I being unreasonable when I suggest that?

The parliamentary secretary put a question to the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I raised the matter a little earlier. I said that there were four unscheduled work stoppages in the Niagara area alone, never mind the rest of the country. I pointed out there had been another one today. Yet he put the question to the member for New Brunswick Southwest and asked him for a legal opinion and asked if there was enough.

I can speak for him. Yes, there has been enough. We are convinced. There are labour problems. People are worried about their security at the borders. A report by one of their colleagues in the Liberal Party, “Borderline Insecure”, raised some of these security questions. All I am asking the parliamentary secretary and the government to do is to sit down with our unions and border guards and get some of these issues resolved. We cannot afford to have these unscheduled work stoppages.

The parliamentary secretary wants lots of ideas, and we will do that when we are in government. However, while the parliamentary secretary is in government, he should do something about these things and get these issues settled. We cannot afford to have this sort of thing happen any more.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member for Niagara Falls knows full well that each time the border officers have raised the issue about security, it has been reviewed by an independent panel. What we are doing at the border is consistent with the labour code. There is not a security risk. I will not get into sensitive labour and management issues, but the member opposite knows that many of the border officers would like to have handguns. The independent assessment of that is they are not required.

The government will be assessing what happened today with the Canada Border Services Agency. I agree with him that this kind of work stoppage is not very constructive or useful. The options will be reviewed. This has been reviewed four or five times by an independent panel and it has said it is not a security risk. The government has to take that into account in terms of developing its action plan from here on in.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, tonight, what I would have expected to hear from my colleague opposite is the raison d'être for what seems to me to be a strange requirement from the United States that all people going through the border have a passport by 2007. I would have expected some explanations on the security needs. I do not see why one should be required to have a passport for security reasons. Personally, I think that, if someone wanted to go through Canada to get to the United States to commit terrorist acts, since a passport would be required, he would have all the passports necessary.

What I see missing in this dialogue between Canada and the United States is an attempt to explain the true nature of the relations that have always existed at the border between Americans and not only Quebeckers, but also Ontarians and other Canadians.

There is in this American position something resembling a lack of confidence toward Canada. I would have liked to hear my colleague opposite talk further on this issue. I heard him say that, at the border, means to move trucks and business people more rapidly had been devised. However, the essence of a border resides not only in economic relations, but also neighbourly relations. We cannot think that, in the current world, in this context of globalization, passports would be required to go from Canada to the United States and vice versa and this, for security reasons.

I heard some colleagues say that this would be terrible for tourism, that it would be difficult for the economy and it would reduce considerably the number of Americans coming to Quebec and Canada and vice versa. Why should a passport be required? I am convinced that all the arguments have not been made.

Frankly, I am glad the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is here. As an aside, when I read in the Toronto Star that Ms. Rice had travelled extensively before coming to Ottawa, I thought that this too could not be attributable solely to the position Canada took on the war in Iraq. We are neighbours. This border is thousands of kilometres long. In many places along this border, there is no one to see whether people have passports, if passports ever become mandatory, which I think we could and should avoid.

Much has been made of economic arguments, but I want to come back to the argument of being a good neighbour. We can take different positions on the important challenges between Canada and the United States.

The fact remains that these are two neighbouring countries in a world not only of trade, but also of travel. We cannot consider requiring passports.

Many of you often travel to Europe. You have seen the Schengen accords. In Europe, a continent where the risks we are referring to this evening are no less present, countries trust each other and have agreement mechanisms. The Schengen accords cover more than 13 countries and these accords are expected to be broadened.

We live in a global village where young and old are neighbours. It is a world in which we vacation, travel and visit. In this world, between neighbours especially, passports are not an item that the average citizen will obtain in order to travel to the United States, Quebec or Canada.

Requiring and accepting passports would be to accept a barrier. This border between Canada and the United States has never been considered as such. It was not an obstacle. I remember when I was young and even more recently and we would cross the border for two or three days and come back and the Americans would do the same.

The member opposite said that there had been several panels and that it was never determined that there were any security issues associated with such a request. There could certainly be panels. This may not be directly connected to my responsibilities, but I would like to see that, because it seems to me that this is what we have to rely on. There is no security problem between Canada and the United States.

We all remember that, following the events of September 11, what was discussed was more along the lines of a security perimeter, some sort of Schengen area. Why are there no more discussions about this perimeter negotiated with Mexico? This would enable us to maintain borders that are not impenetrable barriers, except with a passport. I think that people have to get out of their heads the idea that ordinary citizens in the U.S., Quebec and Canada will get passports to take a Sunday drive across the border, as I said, in the name of good neighbourliness. Much has been said about the economic impact, but my focus is on these good neighbourliness conditions.

The proposals suggest that, at the very least, the decision be postponed so that alternatives can be found. Yes, indeed, efforts should be made to have the decision postponed in the hope that it will be different.

The U.S. Secretary of State, who is very influential in the U.S., is a woman who hears and perceives many things. My hope is that, on the basis of this evidence that there are no security issues involved, she will understand that, aside from the issue of participation in the war in Iraq, there is on this side of the border—I can speak for all of Quebec at least—great sympathy for our neighbour country.

It seems to me that requiring a passport would sever our current good neighbourliness relations and turn them into something very different. The losses would not be only economic ones.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her comments.

It is important to point out that this is a decision for the government of the United States, not the Government of Canada.

Does the hon. member realize that the passport requirement is not just for Canadians, but for Americans as well? They have to present a passport in order to return to the U.S.

Maybe the member could comment on that and also on the question of perimeter. It becomes a very laden concept. It depends on one's point of view and how one defines “perimeter” as a concept.

I know the member is well versed in matters of sovereignty. One of the issues is that if we have a perimeter, we might have to give up certain sovereign policies, or we would have to harmonize with the United States and perhaps Mexico. I am wondering if that is something the member has thought about. Would she have any concerns about that? How would she see that playing out?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have reflected on the matters on which we feel negotiation is possible. Take immigration policies as an example, Canada and Quebec would have different positions than the U.S., but negotiation does seem possible.

Moreover, I imagine that the parliamentary secretary agrees with me that agreement on this is possible. I think he agrees with that. I had understood, and thought I had said that I understood, that the American policy required both U.S. and Canadian citizens to have passports. This does, however, result in a considerable and fundamental change to the good neighbours relationship.

I am not sure that that is clearly understood by the President and his people. It means far more than changed economic relations. Businessmen and major companies are able to find the means to deal with it. It does, however, really change the ability of ordinary U.S. citizens, small businessmen and ordinary people in Quebec and in Canada to make friendly visits. These are people who live on the opposite sides of a border, in different countries, but as neighbours. This is one aspect that strikes me as extremely important.

I hope that together we will be able to convince them that this must not change and that, on the contrary, their neighbour is important. Neighbourliness is not possible everywhere. A neighbour is someone you know well, someone who is different but with whom you share common knowledge. Your characters may be different, but you know each other well. Good neighbourly relations are important.

Together, we can convince the United States that this would change things considerably. I will repeat what I said at the beginning. If anyone wanted to go through Canada to get to the United States to commit terrorist acts, we can be sure that, if passports were required, they would have them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the comments that the parliamentary secretary made related to the fact that this is American legislation and it would seem that he was attempting to distance the government's responsibility to comment or be involved.

I know that is not the case on an ordinary basis where, for example, we have communities that are engaged in lobbying efforts and are active on many different files. I know that the mayor of the city of Windsor is going to Washington on Wednesday to deal with this issue because there seems to be a void. He is going to promote the local interests in terms of the aspects of how it is going to be played out if this initiative is implemented.

The President of the United States has expressed reservations and some kind of disbelief about this, as have many of the American legislatures. They have talked about retraction and about being potentially in haste. Some have signed letters and petitions. Others have been very proficient at getting the message out, doing joint non-partisan or bi-partisan efforts to raise attention to this. Is that not the opportunity or opening for the Prime Minister to finally state that this is wrong for Canada, wrong for the United States, wrong for both of us together, and that we need to seek another solution?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, that was my understanding. In fact, I said so in my remarks. It is suggested that, strategically, the decision should be postponed. But it seems to me that, if it is postponed, this will mean that we will no longer be talking about that decision.

We must be clear on this. The changes made would be too extensive for that to be easily allowed. I know that there are non-partisan efforts on all sides to preserve these cross-border relations. These have to be enhanced.

My colleague from Saint-jean, who represents a border riding, met with people in the United States. They told him that we had to join forces to prevent the border from becoming a barrier which would alter not only our economic relationship—that is a given—but also the neighbourly relations, knowledge and understanding between the Americans on one side and Quebeckers and Canadians on the other side.

Tonight's debate must not stop here. It has to continue with steps that have yet to be determined. Someone talked about strategy earlier. We do need a strategy to postpone this initiative. Our true intention has to be to prevent this passport requirement, on both sides of the border, from becoming a reality and being imposed at the expense of Quebeckers, Canadians and Americans.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, one of the issues that I raised earlier in the debate tonight, out of concern not only for myself but indeed for all members of Parliament from all four political parties, is the lack of resources that the federal government is committing to the passport office itself. I wonder whether my colleague from the Bloc Québécois is experiencing similar difficulties than I am up in the rural riding of Prince George—Peace River in northeastern British Columbia.

We do not have a passport office that is close by. We have a lot of physical impediments. My riding straddles the Rocky Mountains. It is very difficult for constituents to get the assistance that they need to ensure that their passport forms are filled out properly. I know that I am speaking not only for myself. I have had many conversations with other members of Parliament from all political parties that have found that almost all of the time of one of their constituent assistants in their ridings is taken up trying to assist constituents with passports, with properly filling out the applications, getting it sent away and assisting them in getting a passport in a timely manner.

I wonder whether the government realizes that in not making a strong case to the Americans against this. Unless they are prepared to put a lot of resources into it, suddenly every Canadian, to say nothing about every American, who crosses the border is going to need a passport. What type of problems will that create, just administratively, not only for members of Parliament obviously but for the passport office itself?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question. It is a very serious question about which I want to say two things.

First, my colleague is quite right. Being on Montreal island, we have some time problems, but the constituency offices do not need to give it a lot of energy. However, I know many colleagues who have to hire someone to deal only with passports. So there is a very real resource problem. I hope that my colleague understands what I am saying.

That being said, it will be impossible for an individual or a family of four with a modest income to have to get a passport to go on small trips to one country or the other. A passport will cost each American $97. This means that crossing the border will no longer be a pastime for many families of labourers, workers and of ordinary people who used to go to the States, as we used to say, and for Americans to come to Quebec and to Canada. This will no longer be possible because of the cost. For this reason as well, we must reject this initiative.

Of course, as I said, my colleague is right to talk about resources. However, in any case, people who do not have money to pay for these resources did not ask for them. We cannot prevent people, for money reasons, to cross this border between two countries that have been neighbours and friends for centuries, despite their squabbles.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have this opportunity to communicate my concerns and those of my constituents about the proposed western hemisphere travel initiative, also known as WHTI, during this take note debate.

I represent the federal riding of Welland in the Niagara Peninsula in the province of Ontario. Until last year's redistribution of federal electoral boundaries, I represented the municipality of Fort Erie for 10 years. Fort Erie is home to the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Authority, or the Peace Bridge, as it is commonly known, linking Fort Erie, Ontario with Buffalo, New York. The Peace Bridge is one of the busiest Canada-U.S. land border crossings in Canada for both leisure and commercial traffic.

This morning the member for Niagara Falls and I met in Buffalo, New York with Senator Chuck Schumer, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Congressman Brian Higgins as well as Senator Hillary Clinton on a conference call. We also met with members of the business, industry and tourism communities of western New York state and the Niagara Peninsula, all of whom are opposed to the implementation of passport requirements. Most especially, I point out, these are American politicians. We all delivered our message. Also attending was the acting secretary of homeland security, Elaine Dezenski. Passport requirements for entry on the Canada-U.S. border will simply be a disaster for both our countries.

First, however, I would like to reiterate Canada's commitment to the principle of the smart border declaration. Public security and economic security are mutually reinforcing. I also wish to emphasize the importance of the Canada-U.S. economic relationship and to limit the potential negative impact of the WHTI initiative by promoting the flexible application of alternate document requirements.

While I respect the right of the government of the United States to ensure border security, including improved documentation requirements, I believe such initiatives should be approached carefully so as not to impede the flow of legitimate trade and traffic across the land borders between Canada and the United States. There must be reasonable alternatives to meet the United States security requirements. It is time to get it right and getting it right does not mean passports.

The high volumes of cross-border traffic, coupled with the time consuming and labour intensive security of presenting passports, for example, would literally choke our border. The passport requirement is totally impractical and potentially injurious.

In 2004 over 34 million Americans visited Canada. At the same time, 36 million Canadians visited the United States. This is a significant number, representing tens of billions of dollars to the respective economies of both countries. Many of these visitors who make one day trips come from communities close to the United States border, like mine in Niagara. It is my understanding that the majority of such visitors, both Canadian and American, do not hold passports.

The American administration must be educated on the realities that the northern border with Canada does not present the same problem faced on the southern border. Canada and Canadians are not the problem.

Our American friends and ourselves have a unique relationship. It is a relationship unlike anywhere in the world. Our American neighbours and ourselves mutually cross the border to visit family and friends, shop, go to church and go to work. We do not consider it a border to a foreign country. We, and our American neighbours, are in fact one community.

Needless to say, the suggestion that passports may be required is of concern to many Niagara area residents who shop, work or visit regularly in the United States. My office has already noted an influx in calls concerning passport requirements to travel to the United States. Uncertainty has created confusion.

Some feel they do not want the financial burden of applying for a passport, so it would simply end their trips to the United States should a passport be mandatory. This would have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy. Similarly, frequent and often spontaneous trips by U.S. residents into Canada would decline with a similar negative impact on the Canadian economy.

There also appears to be a great deal of confusion around the implementation due to the phase-in dates. Many members of the public are not aware of the details and believe that the first phase-in period will catch everyone going to the United States. I suspect declines in traffic based on this misinformation could begin sooner rather than later with negative consequences.

In recent meetings of representatives from the regional government of the Niagara Peninsula with federal officials in Ottawa it was made crystal clear that the WHTI is one of the top three concerns for the Niagara region.

The Governments of Canada and the United States have made a great deal of headway in improving the flow of traffic at our land border crossings, including new infrastructure. Should traffic significantly decrease due to a passport requirement, all this work will have been done in vain. Well over $100 million to capital improvements to various bridge crossings will all be for naught. These unintended consequences cannot be ignored.

The decline in traffic volume, estimated conservatively at 30%, will also lead to difficulties in bonding or lending capacity for the various bridge authorities. These crossings are integral parts of our trading infrastructure. They cannot be allowed to fall into disrepair.

While no one questions the right of the government of the United States to implement its own exit-entry requirements, I submit that these measures are being taken for the sake of increased security and safety and are not well thought out. I respectfully argue that anyone who harbours ill intentions toward America would not likely use the land border crossings along the longest undefended border in the world. They would cross at innocuous border areas or cross the many lakes and rivers that define our boundary. It is an impossible task to make our border impervious to terrorists. Apprehension of such interlopers would be intermittent at best. Those who have already harmed America were likely in possession of valid passports and other travel documentation. It is not a panacea for security.

Admittedly, many more passports will be issued by our respective countries and carried casually in pockets or cars, thereby creating a far greater security issue through the potential for increased theft or loss and subsequent misuse of these documents. Again, these are unintended consequences.

I am also mindful of the costs of applying for passports and subsequent renewals to our respective citizens, especially as they apply to families. For many, the costs would be prohibitive and a deterrent to cross-border travel. The WHTI proposal would restrict the legitimate intercountry travel for our citizens and for commercial operations.

It is interesting to note that the shortest and fastest route from Detroit, Michigan to Buffalo, New York is through southwestern Ontario and Niagara. It would increase the delivery costs of the big three automakers if they had to travel entirely within the United States. The fastest and shortest route from my residence in the Niagara region to Ottawa is through New York State, from Buffalo to Syracuse to the Thousand Islands.

I recently visited Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada where the only way to travel by land, as we heard earlier tonight, is to travel through the neighbouring state of Maine. Those residents would have to be in possession of a passport to get through a few kilometres to Canada and their family and friends.

I know that many Canadian and American legislators have serious concerns about this issue and its implementation. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the 2006 and 2007 implementation dates should be reconsidered, as all three implicated or affected countries take the time to carefully examine this proposal and do a thorough economic impact study. At some point we must balance security needs against day to day life across our borders. Alternatives other than passports perhaps should be explored as quickly as possible.

We cannot criticize the proposal without suggesting constructive alternatives. Yes, the best solution for me and for my constituents is not to implement the western hemisphere travel initiative. A passport requirement for cross-border travel is simply too burdensome. Yes, we have the NEXUS smart card programs, which certainly are of benefit to those who live close to the borders and which are now utilized with great success, but there are many who do not live close to the borders. What about the people who live perhaps in Cincinnati, Ohio or Lexington, Kentucky or Boston, Massachusetts? They are not likely to have a NEXUS card and if they have to get a passport, they are not going to come.

With all the technology we have today, why can we not use perhaps a motor vehicle licence permit, a driver's licence in other words? It could have the necessary information inputted into the card, such as proof of citizenship or perhaps criminality records or otherwise. For those who do not have a driver's licence, they could obtain a border crossing card or a North American travel card, a card that is inexpensive and easy to obtain. They could get the applications at a postal outlet and there could be a quick turnaround time. Keep it simple, keep it inexpensive, keep it practical.

Our respective countries must work together to find a solution. We must balance political security with economic security and social interaction for our respective citizens. This is too important for both of our countries.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I compliment my colleague on his submission, as well as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest who is really responsible for having this matter come before the House with his emergency debate application last week, which was sadly turned down by the Speaker at that time.

With respect to the documentation that my colleague suggests should be contemplated, I think the real issue here is that it should not be necessarily limited to a single document, at least not at this time. He would know that just over 40% of Canadians and somewhere in the range of 30% to 34% of Americans are currently in possession of a passport. One of the overriding concerns is that if the western hemisphere travel initiative is to come into effect within the next year or two years, as is currently legislated, there will be severe repercussions at the border, as he has suggested, with respect to trade and security.

I am quick to point out that while I agree there is a greater danger of a threat crossing from our border or likewise from the American side coming into Canada happening at a remote border crossing, it is his government that has made significant cuts in withdrawing police from rural communities, not arming our border guards, not giving them sufficient protection and training. I would also be quick to point out that it was in fact at a major crossing in British Columbia where Ahmed Ressam was stopped on the American side of the border, not the Canadian side. This is not to be alarmist or to suggest for a moment that our border agents are not doing good work and being very diligent, but we are not supporting them to the extent that we should.

I make that observation and ask my friend whether it is in fact his real belief that the documentation should be limited to one document. I hope I was mistaken in my hearing when he said that it should be a document that is simple to obtain. That would in fact undermine the entire purpose of the document itself, if it was easy to obtain. It has to be a document that is certainly secure and one that would make the greatest use of the technology that is available.

We have some very sophisticated programs, such as Sentry, NEXUS, FAST and others the member alluded to. The trouble is they are not fully implemented and integrated with the American system at this point. We are not sharing the information to the extent that we should with our own officials, let alone with their compatriots on the other side of the border.

I hope that we will hear some assurance tonight from the member or from his government that Canada and the Prime Minister in particular are going to make maximum benefit of the fact that the Secretary of State of the United States, Condoleezza Rice, is in our country, as one member so famously put it, as we speak. She is in Canada today and will be tomorrow. I hope that this issue will be brought up at those high level meetings and will be done in a diplomatic and forceful way so that the Americans understand the implications for our country and for their own. I am sure they are quickly coming to realize that the ramifications may in fact be worse on the American side of the border.

I would hope as well that we will get some guarantee from someone on the government side that the Government of Canada will be making a submission to the Department of Homeland Security, as it has requested, by October 31, which is rapidly approaching. We hope that that submission will be fulsome and forceful and that it will in fact set out Canada's position as has been solicited by Mr. Chertoff.

I am asking my hon. colleague and friend to give that assurance to the Canadian people because time is of the essence. We do not want to dither away this opportunity as has so often been the case under the woeful leadership of the Prime Minister.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, certainly I can assure the hon. member that the government will be making a forceful intervention on this initiative before October 31. I hope the hon. member will be making his own because I certainly will be as well.

It is a foregone conclusion that this subject will be on the agenda of the Prime Minister and Condoleezza Rice this evening or tomorrow. There is no question about it. The fact that this debate was scheduled for tonight, the natural follow through would be that this would happen.

On the matter of obtaining the travel documents, if they are necessary, and again, my first position is not to have this requirement whatsoever, I have met with American congressmen and senators from other parts of the United States but not the border states. The senators, congressmen and governors of the border states are all opposed to this, but as we go further south into the United States they are of a different ilk and they feel otherwise and are more concerned with security than the economic benefits to either of our countries.

I think reasonable alternatives should be considered. When I said that the card should be simple to obtain, we all know that the NEXUS and Smart border program take a little time. Our citizens would need these cards, if it is in fact implemented, as quickly as possible.

It does not mean that we are going to sacrifice the security requirements and the information that goes into it, but we could obtain them from a postal outlet as opposed to having to go to the border to pick up an application. We should make it easy, make it accessible for our citizens and make it inexpensive.

As we know it costs $85 for a passport now and a NEXUS card costs roughly $50. If one has a family one wants an application with a fee of perhaps $10 which would simply cover the cost of processing or even perhaps a little less to keep it going.

The member had many other questions I believe but those were the highlights that I wish to respond to.