Debates of May 28th, 2009

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Customs Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed? There is no debate?

Is the hon. member for Mississauga South rising to speak at third reading?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did not hear a call for debate but rather the putting of the question at third reading immediately and I believe there are speakers who want to address Bill S-2.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence is rising on debate at third reading.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you held up the discussions that were beginning to develop here so that I could offer a measured opinion on behalf of all of my constituents and all Canadians on the bill. It restores my confidence in the fact that this place can actually work when there are men and women of goodwill who take the public interest at heart. It is the public interest that I want to discuss for a moment.

One might think some of this strange, given the events of the last few days in the House of Commons with respect to confidence and trust in the way that we manage and adhere to the common interest through budgetary measures and through legislation that is designed to ensure that the public good and the public interest is safeguarded through the way that governments spend money and in the way they regulate the generation of wealth, the redistribution of wealth and the incursions of other entities and other corporations in the Canadian marketplace.

I do not want to be partisan because this should not be a place where partisanship dominates, but we need to keep in mind that we have, through our electoral process, given the House and, through it, one party at least, the authority to present a budget to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Through all of that, there is a particular underlying ideology that Canadians have expressed through the electoral process that says that we need a government that can take a measured approach to establishing a regulatory system that provides for the appropriate structures of market development and the protection of Canadian entrepreneurialship in that marketplace that we have come to define as geopolitically Canada.

I will be speaking at some length to this but I think my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, an eminent member of Parliament and an eminent member of the finance committee, would also like to speak on this. I, therefore, want to share my time with him and I hope the House will allow me to do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As this is the first round of debate, the member will need to get the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Eglinton—Lawrence to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I will take that as a positive indication that people also want to hear my colleague as opposed to subjecting themselves completely to me.

Of course, people want to hear comments from other members, instead of hearing only the member for Eglinton—Lawrence speak. However, I would like to come back to today's theme, that is, how this government is addressing the interests of Canadians across this country with respect to the regulations that will govern or affect the management of Canada's national interests.

Like all Canadians, we were somewhat surprised—horrified even, to overstate it a bit and really emphasize the point—to learn the other day that the national deficit inflicted on Canadians will reach $50 billion this year.

The Minister of Finance said there would be $50 billion and more of deficit this year, over a five month period, the expression of at least three different and long estimates about where this country is headed under the leadership of the current government, a Conservative government. One needs only to take a look at what that statement reflects.

First of all, it says that the whole 10 preceding years of balanced budgets, surplus budgets, that reflected a thriving economy, that reflected a mixed economy with an appropriate balance of government intervention and private entrepreneurialship has now been completely abandoned. That is what it means. It does not simply mean that the Minister of Finance does not have an understanding of the way that the marketplace operates, rather, it reflects that he has a perverse view of the way that it should operate.

Imagine, $50 billion and more. For all those Canadians who are watching, and those of us in the House who debate bills such as Bill S-2, what we are looking at is an imposition of an additional almost $2,000 per capita on the debt of every Canadian. That is $2,000.

Mr. Speaker, you are the parent of three children. That means that in your own household, those three children, who have had nothing to do with the creation of the mess that the government is trying to impose on all Canadians, have just earned themselves $2,000 of debt apiece, forever.

There is only one way that the government is going to be able to relieve them of something for which they had absolutely no responsibility. It is going to tax them for the rest of their lives until that debt is paid off, and as that accumulates, additional debt. Each one of those children has just attracted $2,000 of debt, thanks to the Minister of Finance who says he did not know.

This is a concerted conspiracy worldwide. It is a global debt. It is a global crisis. Apparently, we are well equipped to weather the storm, as are your children, Mr. Speaker, every single one of them. There is an additional $6,000 of debt visiting your place because of the minister's inability to handle the economy. That is $6,000 just for the children. For you and your spouse, obviously there is an additional $4,000, so that is $10,000.

That is great, Mr. Speaker. That is $10,000 of after-tax dollars of debt that the Minister of Finance just visited upon your household, and he did that for every single Canadian. All Canadians went to work diligently over the course of the last 10 years under a Liberal government, that had a handle on the economy, that in fact reduced the debt by over $100 billion, and reduced the deficit from $42 billion to zero. All that is out the window. Thanks to the Minister of Finance from Whitby. Thanks to the Conservative government for so badly handling our finances and our economic forecast.

There is no amount of tinkering here and there, such as with Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act, coming out of the Senate, that will have an impact. Can we imagine this place, with a government that has been, until recently, an adamant enemy of the other place, using that other place to generate tinkering legislation, so that we can pretend that we have an impact on the economy? At the same time, he sits around the cabinet table and makes assessments. Six months ago we were in a surplus situation. He said, “Everything is fine. No problem. Do not worry about a thing. You are in good hands”.

Two months after that, four months ago, he said, “We are going to have a deficit because we are going to spend money. We are not going to get any of it out the door but we are going to spend money and it is going to be over $34 billion”. That is $34 billion of deficit that is going to be converted to debt.

Here we are three and a half months later and he says we are going to have more than $50 billion of deficit, more than $50 billion of taxation, direct and indirect, on each and every Canadian in this country. That is what he has done. That is what his gross incompetence has visited upon Canadians.

I said this was not going to be a partisan place, but we have to take a look at how the administration of the economy has to develop. Those who want the authority to establish their control over the administration of a mixed economy like ours, which was thriving until this party came to power, is what we have to judge. We have to take a look at what is the competence level and it is not there, regrettably, I am sorry to say.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member discussed at length many issues unrelated completely to the bill we are discussing this morning. Because he did not have the opportunity to speak to that during his lengthy discussion and ramblings, I would like to ask him this question. What is the Liberal position or maybe his own position as to what technical changes within Bill S-2 he would like to see modified or changed? Is he specifically supporting the changes and provisions within this bill and does his party intend to support this bill?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost aghast at the type of question that is being raised by a government member. The bill is about imposing additional requirements in customs controlled areas. I do not know how that is going to help in stimulating trade and developing growth.

Remember, and I am referring to all government members, that we now have to create an economic environment that is going to generate enough wealth in order to ensure that the government can derive from that wealth an additional $50 billion of revenues, $50 billion that has now been visited upon the children of every single member of Parliament in this place, no matter what party, with a burden of an additional $2,000.

He is going to tell me that the imposition of certain requirements, including the harmonization of language, is going to increase the wealth of this country by that much money. He should give his head a shake. Let us start talking about the economy and proper figures.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is on the right track to the extent that the government seems to not have a clue about the fiscal state of the economy. We all remember during the election only a few months ago, in October, when the Prime Minister was campaigning in his sweater saying the land is strong. It took me back to 1972 with Pierre Trudeau's campaign, when he said everything was okay and deriding the other parties for even suggesting that things were going south. Then a few months later it is a different story. The government keeps going back and forth, clearly out of touch with what is really happening in the economy. The member is on the right track and I would like to ask him to put some further comments on the record.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP has a good handle on what the economy requires. He comes from Winnipeg and understands that in the northern half of North America there is a particular approach that one takes to government.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues share the same position. A certain ideology must be adopted in order to achieve results that will benefit all Canadians throughout the entire country.

My colleague raised a very important question, which is this. If there was in place the appropriate regulatory system prior to the emergence of the Conservative government, would that have taken care of all of the challenges to the economy and to governments? The answer to that is yes. At no time in history was there an unemployment rate so low as there was up to and including 2006 before the election.

Under a Liberal administration, unemployment was below 6%, when 5.5% unemployment is deemed by all economists, and I imagine including the Prime Minister who fancies himself one, as having full employment. Under a Liberal administration, there was just under 6% unemployment. Imagine that. That meant that everybody who wanted a job, or almost everybody, could have been working.

Second, Canada had the highest participation rate of the OECD countries. The highest participation rate in employment terms means that the number of people between the ages 15 and 64 who wanted to work could work. About 68% of people who wanted to work in that age group were participating. That is higher than any other country in the world.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill S-2.

The concern about S-2 is that this may well just be one more layer of protectionism. It has gone through all stages in the Senate and has gone through all stages in the House. It is here in the final stage of the House, but it imposes additional requirements in customs. It expands the research powers of customs officers and provides for regulations of passengers.

This is an interesting coincidence of time but as of June 1 there will be something in the order of 30% of Americans who can come to Canada and that means of course 70% will not be able to come to Canada because they do not have valid travel documents. It means that 53% of Canadians will not be able to travel to the United States.

I do not think that is very good for either of our countries. In the name of the security business, such that common sense seems to get trumped by security and the economy seems to get trumped by security, all in the name of security, we continue to thicken the border. Regrettably, Bill S-2 seems to add to that trend.

We recently had a visit from Secretary Napolitano and she spent a lot of time apologizing for remarks that she had made. I am prepared to accept her apology at face value. I wish also Senator McCain would do the same thing in recognizing that the 9/11 terrorists did not come from Canada.

Unfortunately, this reflects a mentality that is in America, particularly in homeland security. I note that homeland security is subject to the effectively buy American policy. I want to point out that the buy American policy is really like loading a revolver and pointing it at one's head. There are something in the order of 17 million jobs in the United States which would be directly affected by this buy American policy.

It so happens that I was at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. It was really a very impressive event. I happened to sit beside a gentleman who has two factories in Scarborough and a head office in Mississauga. It was his company that supplied the piping and fitting to the American military installation in California.

This company has been in business since 1949. It has literally supplied piping that would circumvent the globe 150 times. It has been in business since 1949, never had a lick of problems shipping its product across the border and yet at this military installation they put the piping in the ground but because it has a made in Canada label on it they ripped it out. That is homeland security. That is the U.S. military. That is the recovery policy of the United States.

That seems to me to fly in the face of President Obama's words when he was here in this country. He said, “We affirm the commitment made in Washington: to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization inconsistent measures to stimulate exports. In addition we will rectify promptly any such measures. We extend this pledge to the end of 2010”.

His secretary, Tim Geithner said, “The G7 remains committed to avoiding protectionist measures, which would only exacerbate the downturn”. He repeated on April 24, “The United States of America will refrain from raising new barriers to trade in goods and services”.

One would have a great deal of difficulty convincing the person with whom I had breakfast this morning that these fine and brave words of free trade are anything other than fine and brave words.

It is time that we actually stand up for Canada. It is time that the government stand up for Canada. It is time that the Conservative Party lives up to its slogan from the last election to stand up for Canada. The only person who can reverse these protectionist measures in the United States is by the Prime Minister of Canada picking up the telephone and talking to President Obama. I have yet to know, at least in a public way, that the Prime Minister has made that telephone call.

When we sign an agreement with the United States such as the secretary of state signed with her counterpart here this week that enhances security for both of our countries, surely to goodness we can expect to be treated in the same manner as a most favoured nation. Surely to goodness when a trade is so voluminous that it is the largest trading relationship in the world, we can expect to be treated in that fashion. And surely to goodness we can expect that President Obama or Congress or whomever will say to state and municipal counterparts that there is no protectionism within the United States with respect to its stimulus package. Surely we can expect that, and surely we can expect the Prime Minister and his ministers to raise that issue at each and every opportunity, because what it leads to is something that none of us wants to contemplate.

My colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence went on at great length this morning about the difficulties facing our nation with respect to this apparently unanticipated deficit. If we end up in a protectionist spiral, we haven't seen anything yet. Indeed, both of our economies will be tragically affected if the things that my friend at breakfast described to me go across the board, that anything with a label such as made in Canada will ultimately be rejected by American states, American military, American municipalities or other American entities that are doing stimulus infrastructure projects.

On November 15, the G20 issued a statement in Washington, D.C.:

We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services...

Yet the Recovery Act also creates an entirely new domestic content requirement for Department of Homeland Security acquisitions by prohibiting the DHS from using any appropriated funds, not just recovery funds, but appropriated funds, to acquire clothing, individual equipment, a long list of textile products, unless they are made in the United States. It is noteworthy that DHS procurement is not subject to NAFTA.

So there we have it. The Department of Homeland Security is in a league by itself; it is in a law by itself. Not only does it thicken the border unilaterally by all kinds of measures, but it does so to the detriment of both of our economies. If this trend continues, this double trend of homeland security, thickening the border and this protectionism, both direct and indirect, will destroy both of our economies.

While we are supporting Bill S-2 and we think there is some good in here, we are very, very concerned with these additional requirements, which are in fact non-tariff barriers.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the concerns about the largest two-way trade between any two countries in the world, Canada-U.S., and the entire just-in-time industries that depend on free flowing border traffic.

All those things are a concern. Putting any of that in jeopardy not only puts the Canadian economy in jeopardy but the 30-some states of the United States of America that have Canada as their number one trading partner. Of course they should be equally concerned that we do not cause problems for one another. While we are in a worldwide recession, certainly Canada and the United States are in this somewhat together.

I also met with a gentleman, who had a piece of pipe with him that had been taken out of the ground in the United States. This particular law says it must be made in America pipe and equipment. I asked him what he thought we should do, because this is a real concern. It is not just a national problem or a national concern in the United States. State by state, and sometimes company by company, there are policies like that. I asked him what he would have us do, as a government or as a Parliament. He did not have any suggestions. He just said it is a big worry.

We can agree with that. I agree with the hon. member that it is a worry. Obviously the Prime Minister has spoken to President Obama, as I assume his leader did as well when he was here. What measures would the member take other than our obvious promise to take this to the WTO and the NAFTA panel? What would the member suggest we do in a legislative or policy way that would change that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we should all be going to these prayer breakfasts; we have some interesting conversations.

I want to compliment the hon. minister on his presentation last night. He and his colleagues presented very well at the national prayer breakfast dinner. We are all encouraging them to take their act on the road, sooner rather than later, and with or without their day jobs.

The gentleman actually had two very specific recommendations. He said that the United States must comply with its written commitment of April 2 to promptly rectify protectionist measures. The inclusion of buy American clauses in U.S. legislation is a protectionist measure.

I will take the hon. minister at his word. I would hope that the Prime Minister, at his meeting with the president, actually did raise this measure with him and that he asked President Obama to intervene, not only to use his authority to repeal those offensive sections but to also grant Canada the most favoured nation status.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not attend the prayer breakfast, so my views are not laced with any religious forbearance but with specific interest.

I can appreciate that my two colleagues are trying to be collegial, and it is important for this place, but I am going to ask my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, to address the following. When the minister opposite asks what he would you do, that is an unfair question. He is not in government. He does not have to address that. The government has an obligation itself to address that question.

Keeping this in mind, the Department of Defense in the United States has an annual budget that exceeds the total Canadian government's budget by more than 100%. In other words, every year they spend more than twice as much as the entire Canadian government does. Its procurement policies are shutting out Canadian industries.

I would like to ask the member for Scarborough—Guildwood to raise that issue with the minister and the government opposite about what they are doing to ensure that Canadian providers are not shut out of that kind of market.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly still have space available at the national prayer breakfast. I am sure my colleague will be more than happy to be there next year. We will save a special place for him.

Under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, the President may waive, in whole or in part, with respect to eligible products of any foreign country, the application of law, procedure or practice regarding government procurement. The Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade, any minister on the front bench can raise that with the president and should do so immediately.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act. Now at third reading, this legislation has made its way through both Houses and their respective committees. At each stage the bill has received broad-based support, and this is because it speaks to some universal priorities. Canadians want to be safe in communities; they want the Canada Border Services Agency to have the resources and flexibility to address risk on any scale, in any form; and, finally, they want to have the opportunity to travel and do business freely and securely.

I want to emphasize for the House that the amendments contained in Bill S-2 address these priorities directly. In the simplest terms, the amendments would improve the ability of the CBSA to carry out proactive risk management, which is a key component of modern border management. Effective border administration requires a comprehensive array of programs and policies that combine in response to multiple challenges. These include contraband, illegal migration, health and safety, organized crime and terrorism. They change over time, and our defence against them must also evolve in kind.

The amendments in Bill S-2 acknowledge the new face of border security and equip our border services officers to contend with it.

At the same time the bill is designed to allow an equally rigorous approach to facilitating cross-border trade and commerce. Responsibility for maintaining this balance is the foundation of the CBSA. The agency provides integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities as well as facilitating the free flow of legitimate persons and goods.

The reason for bringing this bill forward is to give the CBSA greater scope and flexibility as it discharges that dual mandate. The more information the agency has concerning potential threats, the better equipped it is to deal with them in advance of their arrival on Canada's doorstep.

Bill S-2 contains several amendments to the Customs Act. I am going to focus on two in particular. These amendments would fully implement two programs, both of which have been approved and funded by the Government of Canada: the advance commercial information initiative, known as eManifest; and customs controlled areas.

First, the need for fully operational customs controlled areas comes in response to the threats of internal conspiracy and organized crime that can arise in the busy atmosphere of a port. Our border services officers need to have the flexibility to perform stop, search and seizure functions at any point during the transit of goods and people through a port.

The passage of Bill S-2 would give border services officers the ability to question, search or detain anyone suspected of an offence, not only as that person exits the designated area but anywhere inside as well. This would improve the agency's ability to intercept contraband and other illegal items before they enter the country and to combat internal conspiracies at points of entry.

The e-manifest is the second program that would reach full implementation with the passage of this bill. This is a substantial project premised on the idea that CBSA ought to be receiving electronic information on cargo destined for Canada in advance of its actual arrival. This would permit the agency to make more incisive risk assessments prior to arrival.

The e-manifest is the third stage of the advanced commercial information initiative. It would extend requirements already in place in marine and air to the highway and rail modes of transportation. This concluding phase would enable comprehensive assessment of all cargo prior to arrival at our border. In turn, this would mean that less processing would be required upon arrival and legitimate commercial goods would enter Canada more swiftly and with fewer disruptions.

The eManifest is a substantial project, designed to improve the flow of goods and to secure and streamline the process by which legitimate goods are cleared. It would have major consequences for the agency's partners in the trade chain. With eManifest, industrial stakeholders would be facing a new compliance paradigm in which information is requested well in advance of arrival, which would allow for a more thorough risk assessment by CBSA.

It is critical that the agency be in tune with the concern of stakeholders as this project approaches implementation. The best way for CBSA to ensure that its commercial partners comply with changing requirements at the border is to build trust with them. For that reason, the agency has consulted thoroughly throughout the initial stages of eManifest, and these consultations are ongoing.

This government is committed to preserving Canada's reputation as a welcoming and free-trading nation. At the same time, we are cognizant of the scope and evolution of border threats. The Canada Border Services Agency does an excellent job of ensuring the integrity of this balance, and it is up to us as parliamentarians to support it in that role.

I am going to conclude my remarks with a call to all members of the House to see Bill S-2 through third reading. The legislation addresses fundamental concerns. Do the people who manage the vast movement of people and goods into Canada have the right tools at their disposal? What do they need to do their job better? These are questions we must ask repeatedly because international border management is a field that is constantly evolving.

This legislation acknowledges the challenges faced by the Canada Border Services Agency, and I believe it would be instrumental in giving the agency what it needs to do its job.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving us a briefing about the Canada Border Services Agency.

Bill S-2 is a tidy-up bill which provides some amendments. I wonder if the member could shed some light on one clause that caught my attention. It is the very last item that has been added. New Section 164.1(1) states:

A regulation made under this Act may incorporate by reference any material regardless of its source and either as it exists on a particular date or as amended from time to time.

I am a little concerned because I have not seen this type of language before in all the years that I have been here. I am wondering whether the member is aware of why this has been put in the bill. It basically says that any document can be referred to in any regulation, which can be made by order in council at any time and in any document whether or not it is relevant.

My concern is from the standpoint of bringing in or by incorporating by reference intent or basis for the Canada Border Services Agency to do or not do certain things which may not be enabled in the legislation itself. It is a very sweeping undertaking whereby any document can be incorporated by reference. It is, in my view, far too broad and not generally prevalent in bills having regulations.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that particular section received a great deal of scrutiny as it went through the other house. If I am correct in my understanding, it was, in the simplest of terms, placed into the legislation so that as world trading evolves, as different things occur, not in a major way but in a minor way, the regulations could be adopted as opposed to bringing the bill back to make amendments to it. I do not believe it goes beyond that scope.

I believe that issue was widely addressed in the other place and I believe amendments were made at that point.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last June the Chief Peguis Junior High School in Winnipeg bused a track and field team to the Hershey's Track and Field Games in North Dakota. The required manifest was given to customs 48 hours in advance, and yet when they showed up at the border, one of the athletes, a 14 year old, was taken off the bus, fingerprinted and sent back to Canada.

I took this up at the Midwestern Legislative Conference last July in Rapid City, South Dakota. For the second time ever in our membership, we were able to pass a resolution asking Canada and the United States to come up with a more consistent program which would be easier on seniors' bus tours and children's athletic tours such as that one.

Letters were sent off last July to the Prime Minister and to the president. I never heard another thing about it. I am just wondering whether some of those thoughts were reflected in this legislation.

I would ask the member about the success of the NEXUS program. I have heard different things and I understand it really has not developed in the way it was supposed to and there is not a huge uptake in the program. If the member has any new information about that, I would certainly like to hear it.