Debates of Oct. 24th, 2005

U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I thought it was very thoughtful and a very good addition to the debate. He raised something that is important for my riding. I did not have time in my speech to raise it, so it gives me a good opportunity to raise it.

He mentioned the cruise ships that come up the coast. A lot of Canadians get to my riding in Yukon, Canada by going on those cruise ships to Alaska or by plane to Alaska and then crossing the border. Some Americans end up in the Yukon and want to get into Alaska as well.

There is a unique set of laws relating to rental cars that probably work well on the southern border. Americans cannot rent cars in Canada and drive back into the United States and Canadians cannot rent cars in the United States and drive back into Canada. This may make sense down at the main border, but at the Alaska-Yukon border, because there are no car rentals nearby, it does not work. Canadians cannot get back into the Yukon to spend money and the Americans cannot get back into Alaska to spend money. It is hurting the tourism industry on both sides.

Would the member support my efforts to try and get an exemption in those laws just for the Alaska-Canada border so that Canadians could come into Canada again and spend some of their tourism money when they happen to land in Alaska on those cruise ships or airlines? The Americans could change their laws reciprocally so that they could rent cars in Canada and tour Alaska but also spend money in Canada.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as whether or not I would support exemptions for people from the Yukon travelling to and fro across the border, I do not think that is the question that we are asking here. Canadians want to know whether there are going to be exemptions for all of Canada, not just for people who travel to and from Yukon. Let us not look just at the specifics. Let us look at the enormity of this problem.

It is no small task to ask 66% of Americans to get a passport or 49% of Canadians to get a passport when they do not currently have one. It is a task beyond the ability of either of our governments to meet in the short term before these requirements take effect.

It begs the question, where has the government been on this issue? This legislation has been around for several years. It has been passed in Congress. Our government has obviously known about it, but it has done absolutely nothing with it. The Prime Minister's silence on this issue is deafening. There are seven days left to submit comments on these regulations to the Department of Homeland Security, and the Prime Minister, or any member of his cabinet, has yet to stand in this House and tell Canadians what the plan is to prevent our economy from going down the toilet.

We are talking about $1 billion in tourism on an annual basis. That is an enormous hit to our economy. That is an enormous hit to every one of the small towns across the border, towns like South Surrey and White Rock, which are largely dependent upon tourism activity. Gas stations, restaurants, duty free stores on both sides of the border will suffer. Yet here we have a government so preoccupied with scandal and corruption that it cannot take the time to solve some of the most basic and pressing needs of the country. It strikes me as shocking, in fact, that it has been so silent on this particular issue.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the details that gets to me in the western hemisphere travel initiative is the cost to families and fixed income seniors to obtain passports just to be able to cross the border. The member said that it would cost a typical Canadian family of four somewhere in the neighbourhood of $350 to obtain passports and it would cost a U.S. family of four a comparable amount in U.S. dollars, not even in Canadian dollars. Rich families may be willing to cover that cost. To them it is just the cost of travel or whatever. But fixed income seniors and poor families will not make the grade on this one. Standing up against this western hemisphere travel initiative really is standing up for low income Canadians.

Conservatives have been fighting this battle for months now. Where has the Prime Minister been? What will it take to get the Prime Minister to stand up for Canadians, particularly for fixed income seniors and low income families?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the great question but I honestly am not sure how to answer it. What will it take? Perhaps another catastrophe. Perhaps he will to dither until the border closes and then suddenly wake up and realize that we have a problem.

Our experience with the government is such that it takes an immediate crisis to get its attention. It cannot seem to plan too far ahead. It is so preoccupied with its own internal plans, scandals, corruption and grafts to their own members or past members that it cannot seem to see far enough ahead to anticipate the problems that we are facing.

To answer his question, I am not sure what it will take. Certainly the families that are planning their vacations for next Christmas or the Christmas after are starting to count the cost. They are starting to put away the pennies to pay for that extra $350 it will take for them to cross the border to go to Seattle or to Disney and for our American friends to come up to Whistler to see beautiful British Columbia.

[An hon. member]

The Okanagan.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

The Okanagan, as my colleague points out. They are counting the costs. They are looking ahead. They are anticipating what this will do to their travel plans.

In fact, as a member of the border caucus I hear on a regular basis about the impact this is currently having. It is not even in place yet and the tourism industry is suffering because of the anticipation that passports will be required. People do not seem to know that it is not in place yet and so they are shying away in the expectation that they have heard something about it in the media, that they have read an article or maybe that a friend told them this was coming and they now seem to think that it is in place and that they cannot cross the border without a passport.

It is having an impact as we speak. What will it take to get the government's attention? I am not sure but I sure hope we can get its attention as members of the opposition stand here late this evening to bring this to its attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do know that the member who just spoke has invited the American Ambassador Wilkins to Parliament Hill on, I believe, Wednesday evening to give a talk, as he is one of the co-chairmen of the all party border caucus.

I want to get a sense of what types of questions and information he is seeking from the U.S. ambassador who obviously would have to agree with us that this is a huge problem in the making. In fact, I do know that when we met with our counterparts in the United States during the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary meetings in September in St. Andrews, democrats and republicans alike agreed that this was ill-thought out legislation.

However, in reference specifically to the American ambassador, what are some of the member's thoughts in terms of how he will approach the ambassador.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing to the attention of members opposite and to the public that the U.S. ambassador, David Wilkins, will be addressing the border caucus this Wednesday.

This will not be the first time he has heard about this issue. I met with him about two weeks past and raised the concerns we have. He has heard them from his own government in fact. We know that this past spring the President of the United States expressed some concern about the impact this would have.

My understanding is that the Americans are so focused on security issues that they perhaps in this instance have had a lack of foresight to contemplate the consequences of the legislation. I know that Justice Sensenbrenner, the member of Congress who brought forward the real ID bill, which was the precursor to the western hemisphere travel initiative, did so because of his concerns about illegal aliens in the United States. He was doing that to address that particular issue and that bill got transferred into the WHTI and before we knew it we were facing a crisis.

Mr. Wilkins, I am sure, is very well aware of this and he certainly will be apprised of our concerns on Wednesday when members of the border caucus speak with him, largely about this issue and perhaps other issues such as softwood and so on. Thankfully, I understand that we have some support in the United States, that members of the Congress and the Senate are with us on this issue, so hopefully working together we can draw the attention of the American Congress to revisit this question.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, in this late hour of the day, we in this House are being asked to consider the western hemisphere travel initiative, a policy under consideration by the United States government that will, if implemented, fundamentally change the manner in which we travel between the United States and Canada.

This policy would require not only Canadians but also Americans to present passports as the only acceptable form of identification when travelling or returning to the United States.

When this policy was first announced in Washington on April 5, 2005, Elaine Dezenski, an assistant secretary of state, responded to a question by stating, “--we don't control what the Canadians ask of us as we go into their country”. I mention this because I am sure we will concede that should the United States proceed with this policy, in all likelihood we in Canada will require the same level of documentation.

The answer to Ms. Dezenski's statement is that we do control to some degree how we interact with each other as two nations.

The United States is our closest trading partner. We share the security of our continent through the North American Air Defense Command. From the shores of Normandy to the hills of Kandahar, Americans and Canadians have stood together. Ours is a relationship unique in the world. We have a common border that stretches over 8,893 kilometres and a common bond that moves through the fabric of our two peoples.

While we recognize the right of each nation to make whatever rules it feels are necessary for its best interests, we also know that in being so closely connected there are always implications for the actions we take. We have ideals and a vision of ourselves that can certainly be quite divergent. We do not share a common concept of health care. We may not share all the same objectives of foreign policy or, indeed, our vision of the world but we are friends.

Each year millions of Americans come north to Canada and millions of Canadians travel to the United States. We are neighbours visiting neighbours and friends visiting friends. For generations, young Canadians and Americans have crossed our mutual borders on weekends with drivers' licences in hand. They come and go seeking entertainment and they feel comfortable in each other's countries.

Every day people and goods travel across our large frontiers as we trade with each other's number one trading partners. These efficient and unimpeded border crossings are essential for the millions of Americans and Canadians who work in industries that rely on each other for success.

We should not be about building walls between us but rather we should be about building bridges.

When we look to other parts of the world we see nations making it easier to travel between them. In fact, we see greater efforts at partnership. One only has to look at the current status of travel within the European Union. Citizens of member states of the European Union move with little or no hindrance between each other's countries. They understand that the key to a successful partnership, whether in business, culture or travel, is smooth and efficient mobility.

We understand that the United States is a country that endured the most horrendous of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Indeed, we know there is a need for increased vigilance. However the true objective of terror is to cause those who are its victims to change their lives and to alter their ideals.

While it is essential that we work with our friends in the United States to ensure our mutual security, it is likewise just as important that we protect and encourage the very foundations of our special relationship. The ability to move between our two countries is at the heart of the relationship, and whether it is for business or pleasure, we must be accessible to each other.

We live on a shared continent with forests as old as time itself and rivers that flow across our borders. We share common shorelines of the greatest freshwater lakes in the world. We share a climate. We share mutual cultural interests.

There was a time when we would both speak proudly of having the world's longest undefended border. This was part of our relationship, unique in the history of the world.

The western hemisphere travel initiative is being discussed here because our relationship is important to Americans and Canadians.

I encourage all members of the House, governments in both countries and all citizens of our two countries to take the time to recognize that while we must be ever vigilant about our security, we must also be ever vigilant not to diminish the very special relationship that it has taken generations to build.

Let reason prevail and common sense carry the day.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this initiative could have a tremendous effect on our tourism industry of 7.7 million trips into Canada and over tens of millions of dollars in my riding.

I want to ask the member if he appreciates that this should be a non-partisan effort by everyone and we should work together in the House. It is great to hear a number of opposition members come on side tonight. As the member mentioned, it was announced on April 5 of this year but it was as early as March, before it was even announced, that our Deputy Prime Minister came out strongly on this initiative. Our embassy has taken a number of initiatives on this. I was in Washington recently and the ambassador was giving a speech that was not even related to this topic, but he brought forward this issue to make sure that it was front and centre with many very important American leaders.

Does the member think it is very important that all the opposition parties have come on side with the many efforts the government has been making in this area?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the member's engagement on this very important issue. I fully agree with the member's statement.

In the United States the fact is that Congress plays an incredible role in decision making. We as parliamentarians have a role to play, not just here tonight in sharing our points of view with Canadians across the country but we have an obligation as well to meet the members of Congress in the United States and discuss our mutual concerns. Many of them share similar concerns with us in Canada.

It is not just about the executive branch of the Canadian government dealing with the executive branch of the United States government. It is also about the legislators. We as legislators have that obligation and an opportunity as well to speak with our American friends to make sure that they also share our concerns.

This country has a profound understanding of the American situation and the very horrific events that happened there on September 11, 2001. There is also an incredible history of the bond between Americans and Canadians and we cannot have that interfered with in any way, shape or form by a very horrific terrorist attack which took place in the U.S.

We have to make sure that we do not impede the flow of our goods and people across the border between Canada and the U.S. Ours is a relationship that has spanned time. We must do everything possible to move forward and not backward.

The European model is becoming more and more integrated. It is not a problem to cross from one country to another without any type of documentation. In Canada we have a situation where we still require some form of documentation. To become more restrictive when we know that most Americans and many Canadians do not have passports would be a huge impediment. We as legislators have an opportunity to meet with our counterparts in the U.S. to discuss our concerns with those congressmen in order that they understand our concerns and to make sure that this does not happen.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the work that Canada has done in this area, this is a good opportunity to give thanks to a group in the Canadian government that does not get enough of thanks. That is our missions in the United States. Everyone talks about the tremendous work the Canadian embassy and its staff in Washington have done, but we have missions across the United States. They have done some wonderful work on two major issues we have had with the United States recently. One is coming to a very crucial vote in Congress shortly, and that is the Arctic national wildlife drilling. Once again our missions across the United States have done great work in lobbying American congressmen.

On this issue, our missions in places like Washington State, Detroit and Buffalo have had sessions to educate stakeholders and to get people to comment to the United States government during the input period. In particular, the consulate very fond to me is the one in Anchorage right beside my riding. This morning I made the point that It sent out letters to over 100 state lawmakers, mayors, chambers of commerce, leaders and other stakeholders outlining the potential impacts for Alaska. It has encouraged them to consider joint responses.

I assume that the member would agree with me that we need all departments and arms of government working together, and compliment the Canadian consulate in Washington and our various missions right across the United States.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising a very important point. It is by working through our stakeholders that we are able to move forward in an effective manner. Our government has been working through the consulates, through the different departments and through our stakeholders. We also have engaged members of Congress. In addition to that, we have engaged many of the people who share our concerns in the U.S.

We have been building this very important relationship. We need to ensure that we engage our stakeholders to ensure that the part of the legislation that deals with the passports, which could cause a huge economic problem to both Canada and the U.S., does not take place.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on this issue that is so very important for all of Canada but which of course has a specific interest for my riding of Leeds—Grenville, as we are so heavily dependent upon three sectors, agriculture, tourism and manufacturing, all of which depend on the ability to cross the border and go back and forth with the flow of goods and people.

Of course with the tourism issues in your riding of Kingston and the Islands, Mr. Chair, the issues are very similar to those in my riding, with areas along the Thousand Islands that are dependent upon U.S. visitors, as well as the Rideau Lakes. I know that the Rideau Canal also runs into your riding, Mr. Speaker.

This issue is going to have a major economic impact on our country as well as the United States. I think we have to work with our colleagues and our friends on the other side.

I am a member of the border caucus. I recently attended a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, where we talked about this. It was one of the key issues we talked about that day. What we did hear from one of the American congressmen was that many of the congressmen in the middle states see this as an issue that only has to do with what is going on at the U.S.-Mexico border. They do not understand the economic impact that will hit their own country.

It is up to us and our government to reach out to our allies on the U.S. side to ensure that this does not happen. Only a few weeks ago I was in Alexander Bay, New York, with my provincial counterpart, Bob Runciman. We both spoke at a tourism conference of U.S. tourist operators in upstate New York. People from throughout New York were there. It was a governor's conference. They are very concerned about this issue. They are the people to whom we need to be reaching out to ensure that they are lobbying their government, because they are going to suffer from this as well.

I am very concerned about how our government has treated the relationship with the United States and how we got into this. Canada should have had special status on this issue long before we got to this final period of time when there is only a very short period to lobby on this. We need to use the short time that we have to ensure that our government lobbies and reaches out, but we also need to work with organizations within Canada.

I know that this issue has come to the forefront just in the past month or so, really, and now we are down to the critical time, with just seven days to go. This could be devastating to many people. I will talk about the tourism industry, one that I am very familiar with. Many people are employed in this industry, whether it be in lodging, food, service, transportation or in attractions. The livelihoods of many people depend upon it.

Of course in agriculture it will have an impact on moving back and forth. As for the industry in my riding, we have many plants that export many of their goods to the United States.

Really, I am imploring the government at this point to make sure that it lobbies on this, that it reaches out and builds allies. We have heard from the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, who has been working hard as one of our co-chairs on the border caucus. He has worked to ensure that we work together on this.

Now is the time. Time is short. That is why we are having this take note debate tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to get my comments on the record, but the last thing I will say is that now is the time. Let us reach out and solve this problem before it is too late.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. They were very thoughtful, but I just want some clarification on one point. Perhaps he missed my speech earlier when I was going through the number of things the Canadian government has already done. I talked about how this initiative was announced on April 5, but the Deputy Prime Minister had already become active in March at a conference.

I mentioned a number of the consulates just a few minutes ago, and what they have done, but I will add to it just so I am not boring the House with the old information. The consulate in Seattle worked with the people in that area. Our consul general in Minneapolis is Kim Butler. I know Peter from our consulate in Washington, who informed the various territories, provinces and associations on the procedure for getting their points and their members, all of whom have great interest in this, into the United States. I just wanted to get that on the record.

The member mentioned the type of special status that we might have had at this point. I would be interested in hearing him outline how that might look and what the special status might be that he was thinking of, just to continue the debate.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question, I want to talk about the fact that this is the first time we have had a debate in the House about this issue. The issue has gone on for a long time and now it has been brought forward. It was up to us to bring it forward.

I attended a border caucus meeting back in early September and not one single member of the government was at that meeting with our U.S. counterparts. It is disgraceful.

As for the question on special status, with the supposed special relationship we have with the United States, why was the government not there? Why was it not standing up for Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, in routine proceedings, the Prime Minister of Canada or any minister of the Crown has the opportunity to bring forward issues to the House of Commons, day in and day out. Keep in mind that the Prime Minister wanted to address the democratic deficit.

Going back to the previous question, why the deafening silence on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada on an initiative where his government could have done something? We hear Americans talking out loud about the consequences of ill-considered legislation. Why the absence of the Prime Minister of Canada and why did he not use the House as a springboard for that debate to engage all parliamentarians?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, had we had an opportunity to debate this and get a motion on the floor a long time ago, we could have had that unanimity among parliamentarians in Canada. The reality is this goes back to the fact that the government uses Canada-U.S. relations as a pinata to be used for electoral purposes on an ongoing basis. It needs to stop, and this is the result of that type of activity. We need to see an end to it.

[The Speaker]

It being 11:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 53(1), the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.

(Government Business No. 18 reported)

[The Speaker]

It being 11:30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:30 p.m.)