Rahim Jaffer

[Terrorism, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister finally meets President Bush next week to tell him what Canada can contribute to the war against terrorism. However he has an equally important measure to deliver regarding Canada's border integrity.

What message is the Prime Minister bringing to President Bush to ease his fears and protect the Canadian economy?

[Customs Act, September 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to address the second reading of Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Bill S-23 comes before the House at a great time of crisis when the eyes of Canadians, and indeed the world, are upon our borders.

I wish to thank our customs officers who, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, have been under incredible pressure working extra long hours thoroughly checking thousands of travellers seeking entrance to Canada. They are doing a tremendous and extremely valuable job with limited human, technological and financial resources.

I will address the initiatives enacted by Bill S-23 and their impact on our economy and trade relations; and, more important, the importance of our trade relationship with the United States and what is needed to protect and stabilize that relationship.

We are a trading nation. Our economy has positioned itself over the past decade to facilitate, expand and promote our international trade relationships. None of these relationships are as crucial as our relationship with the United States.

As a result of the FTA and NAFTA the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency handles over $500 billion in cross-border trade and processes more than 108 million travellers each year. These numbers dictate that efficient systems need to be implemented to keep pace.

The Canada-United States accord on our shared border was signed in 1995 with a number of goals: to promote international trade; to streamline processes for legitimate travellers and commercial goods; to provide enhanced protection against drug smuggling and the illegal entrants of people; and to reduce costs to both governments. The initiatives we are debating today were derived to fulfill the accord's goals.

The customs action plan began in 1998 involving nationwide consultations with groups representing trade and traveller groups to streamline the processing of goods and travellers based on risk assessment and a fair, effective sanctions regime. I commend the minister and his department for seeking industry input to reflect its needs and realities in these amendments.

The Canpass permit program contained in the bill allows travellers who frequently cross the border by air or surface for legitimate purposes to register with the government and pass through the border without having to stop for questioning. These participants are thoroughly checked before being accepted to the program and are subject to random spot checks to ensure compliance.

The administrative monetary penalties system, or AMPS, is a new regime to help ensure compliance. In the past, penalties and sanctions were rigid and in many cases too extreme for small infractions. For example, the seizure of a vehicle is hardly an appropriate penalty for a $100 discrepancy in declared goods.

The AMPS regime sanctions range from simple warnings to punitive fines of $25,000 to match the severity and frequency of infractions. The flexibility and discretion facilitated by this regime would allow fines to be administered on the basis of fairness.

One of the Canadian Alliance's ongoing concerns with our airports and ports of entry has been the ability of Canadian officials to determine the identity of those arriving and the ability to separate arriving passengers from other people in the plaza. We have called on the government to utilize electronic technology to forward travel document information from departure to destination to deal with those who arrive at customs without identification.

Thousands of refugee claimants have arrived in Canada without travel documents or identification, but they had documents when they boarded a plane to get to Canada. The advance passenger information system, or API, requires commercial carriers to provide information in advance of arrival with respect to drivers, crew members and passengers.

This is a step in the right direction. However much more is needed to adequately meet the needs of Canadian security.

Bill S-23 would allow for the examination of export mail. As a Canadian dedicated to the protection and advancement of personal liberties, I am uncomfortable voting for such an amendment. However I understand the rationale for such procedures.

I am concerned about the frequency and discretion of those who would be permitted to intercept and examine outgoing mail. We have experienced many complaints of overzealous examination of inbound mail.

In my riding of Edmonton--Strathcona, in an area called Old Strathcona, there are a number of import based industries on the retail front. Some of these industries import on a regular basis various artifacts from Africa and Latin America. One of these importers has been in business for over 10 years. They have an ongoing problem with customs at the border when many of their products come into the country.

Some of the changes prescribed in the bill would help to address some of those problems. One of the biggest complaints made by these importers is the fact that when their goods come from customs there is not the required due diligence in respect of their products being in the right condition so they can sell them.

One of my constituents sustained $60,000 worth of damage to his goods because of the way customs searched through all the products that came through without proper attention to due diligence. That is outrageous. In some cases that can make or break certain businesses, depending upon the kind of business they are in.

This is unfortunate and it is due to certain rules currently in the Customs Act that allow customs officials to check these products. Once they start rifling through them the insurance on these packages is no longer valid. Once damage has been done the recipient cannot get reimbursed for any loss. That is a big problem.

This is one of my concerns that relates to personal liberties because we need to protect the flow of goods coming through. We need to be thorough and do the proper checks. There is no doubt about that. However we must respect people's property, their businesses and their livelihoods. If that is not done effectively then many business owners would potentially lose millions of dollars and unfortunately have products they cannot use or sell.

The initiatives and programs contained in Bill S-23 would benefit many Canadian companies in their administrative tasks by allowing Canadians to import materials and products with greater ease. However reciprocal programs on the part of the United States are lacking. The programs do very little to help Canadian companies access American markets. These initiatives do not help Canadian employees for whom the prosperity of their families and livelihoods are contingent upon unfettered access to the United States.

The Canada-U.S. border is a clash in fundamental philosophies. The U.S. customs service believes that its primary mandate is enforcement, whereas Canada Customs believes that its primary mandate is to liberate trade restrictions and collect revenues.

In light of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, our border security has come under increased scrutiny. The debate over liberalization of border procedures may only be entertained within a greater debate on national security, in particular border integrity.

We can have it both ways: a border that expedites international trade while closing its doors to terrorism, organized crime and smugglers. What is required is a principled plan and the political will to defy bureaucratic agendas, to ignore special interest interventions and to resist the vices of political expediency.

What is needed is a government that exhibits leadership and resolve, two qualities yet to be displayed by the administration. Since the tragedy of September 11, the Prime Minister has done little more than offer platitudes and deflect blame. To continue along this path would only result in our economic peril. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week:

Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We are going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United States.

He also added that for those nations that do a better job of policing their borders the U.S. would work with them. Last night President Bush stated that there is no truer friend to the United States than Great Britain. When Canada markets itself to the world our greatest selling feature is our proximity to the United States and the privilege of being its most favoured nation. What happens if that relationship were to be diminished?

I know that a politician's enemy is a hypothetical question. However I question how hypothetical it actually is. I read in the National Post that Honda was reconsidering investing in Canada and was contemplating redirecting that investment to the United States due to the uncertainty surrounding the flow across the Canada-U.S. border.

In light of recent tragedies Canada has been given an opportunity to address our security deficiencies. There is an inherent responsibility on the part of the government to do so. By taking immediate action the government would not be capitulating to American interests but rather responding in a practical and prudent manner.

I emphasize the importance of securing and expanding our trade relationship with the United States. There is no turning back from free trade.

No issue is of greater urgency than the security of the North American perimeter. Our walls must be reinforced and entry and exit security must be improved. By threatening the openness we have enjoyed along the Canada-U.S. border we jeopardize billions of dollars of trade and tens of thousands of Canadian jobs. Our very standard of living is at stake as over 87% of our trade is done with the United States.

This concept is based on common sense. Canada and the United States, through NAFTA and numerous other accords and treaties, are the world's closest allies. We share the longest undefended border in the world. If we want to maintain that relationship we must ascertain who is crossing that border by first of all identifying who is in our respective countries. Only when we can confirm the integrity of our external borders can we minimize the scrutiny of our shared border. A bilateral initiative with the United States to share border integrity is integral.

In terms of immigration, those who argue deceptively that strength in screening approaches are anti-immigrant are mistaken. Our immigration policies must be generous. However they must be rigorous. We can no longer have a policy of admit first, ask questions later.

Our policies and laws must protect the lives and livelihoods of Canadians. We must weigh the concerns about the safety of our citizens and the preservation of an open trade relationship with the United States against our humanitarian responsibility to receive genuine refugees.

Thousands of displaced persons find refuge in Canada every year. The vast majority are legitimate refugees. Many others are seeking to circumvent the immigration system or gain access to Canada for the purpose of criminal and terrorist activity. The latter comprise the minority of those seeking asylum. However they have an astute knowledge of our laws and know how to navigate their way through the system and carry out their agenda to the detriment of Canadian society as a whole. Collateral damage occurs through association by creating a negative impression of their ethnic or religious community in Canada.

The Canadian Alliance does not criticize the federal government's underlying intentions for granting refuge. Our grievances are with the process. We want to help as many legitimate refugees as possible, however, we believe stringent and secure refugee determination processes are in the best interests of genuine refugees seeking entrance to Canada.

In order to have entrance to Canada granted, the identity of applicants must be ascertained. Their whereabouts while in Canada must be monitored. Those whose identities and backgrounds cannot be determined must be detained and those whose applications for asylum are denied must be deported forthwith. When it comes to accountability, this is the bare minimum.

A message must be sent out to the world that Canada is a home for those in genuine need of humanitarian support, however, those attempting to take advantage and abuse our humanitarian generosity will be punished severely and swiftly.

The adjudication of refugee cases must be performed by qualified officers. Political organizers, fundraisers and unsuccessful candidates are not qualified to perform such a rigorous mandate.

As members know, I am quite sensitive to the issue of refugees and Canada opening its arms to refugees. As like many in the House, my family came to Canada as refugees. We fled the dictatorship of Idi Amin in Uganda where our family was unfortunately kicked out in the early 1970s, three generations living in a country we called home, where we built our own wealth, friendship and families. Freedom was ripped away from us overnight without any justification except that we were discriminated against because of the colour of our skin. We did not fit into that particular community.

In that unfortunate event in Uganda, my home country where I was born, we were fortunate that we were able to come to Canada. Canada welcomed us with open arms. If we look at the number of refugees during that period of time from that particular region of the country and see how they have contributed to this country with all the people who are either working now as professionals, adding to the economy and to the community by volunteering, it is fantastic to see those sorts of rewards that Canada was able to reap by having such a generous and humanitarian policy for settling refugees.

That is what we need to focus on. We need to continue to allow Canadians such as my family, who are so thankful that Canada welcomed us here with open arms, and others who want to come to this country, to take advantage of the opportunity and not abuse the laws. As I mentioned, those who abuse the laws are in the minority. We need to make sure that people coming to the country are not done in by the laws of this country, especially by those who unfortunately want to abuse those laws. I am sensitive to that. I encourage that. As a refugee I feel that we have to do as much as we can, but we have to be rigorous.

Some of the most ardent proponents of reforming Canada's immigration and refugee determination laws are new immigrants themselves. They all went through the hoops and met every requirement. Not only are they upset with those who abuse the refugee system, they are livid with those of their community who abuse the system and commit crimes in Canada, casting a negative light upon their community.

The government is not doing its job properly. This is evident with the backlash experienced by Canada's Islamic and Sikh communities. Government mismanagement of the refugee system is a disservice to the immigrant communities that are working hard to contribute to a country which has given them so much.

In conclusion I would like to state the fact that the bill was first introduced in the Senate, which is unelected and lacks legitimacy to address legislation prior to the House of Commons, and I would like to state the fact that the Canadian Alliance demand is for anti-terrorist legislation to strengthen national security and eradicate terrorist activity within Canada.

I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word that with the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts, since the principle of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I would like to explain in clear terms that my party is very proud of immigrants and hopes that Canada will be able receive even more immigrants. However, there are some real security problems and other related problems that we must debate here in the House.

I want to be clear and say that the official opposition has always been pro immigration, pro refugee. Coming to this country as a refugee, I am very sensitive to that. In talking about tolerance, when I talked about the idea of the conflict that is taking place, the terrorism, the idea of trying to be tolerant of all communities is something I think Canadians exemplify to the world.

When it comes to immigration, I have been on the record as calling for even more immigration. I try to push that debate in many cases among my colleagues here in the House and elsewhere. But we do have to do the proper security checks. That is really all we are trying to say. There are people who potentially abuse our system. We need to put an end to it. By no means is that calling for restricting immigration, restricting refugees or anything along those lines. If anything, we would like to encourage it.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked to see the hon. member actually now starting to place blame at the feet of the United States. When I started my speech, what I said I would be doing was identifying potential problems that we have in our current system, especially at borders and where we can actually improve the situation to make sure that not only the lives and security of Canadians are protected but that also if we can, help our biggest trading partner, the United States.

There have been many reports here in Canada that have identified this problem. Even customs officials themselves are saying that they do not have the resources to be able to do the proper work to be able to check the backgrounds of many people coming into this country. In fact, when they come to this country and while they are here, there are numerous things that they can do to actually find the proper paperwork before they enter the U.S.

This is a major problem and I am shocked that the hon. member, instead of trying to find solutions as we have been doing here in the official opposition, now is trying to point fingers at the United States saying they are the ones to blame. It is just outrageous.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this solemn occasion to contribute to this historic debate. I would like to start by expressing my sincere condolences to those thousands of victims and their families whose lives are forever changed as a result of the horrific and cowardly acts of terror.

The victims are from all races and creeds. They were all innocently going about their daily lives when the terrorists struck. I offer these condolences on behalf of the people of Edmonton--Strathcona whom I have the privilege of representing in the House of Commons.

As the only Muslim elected to parliament in Canada, I want to extend my condolences on behalf of the Canadian Muslim community. I feel a responsibility to clarify to the Canadian people what the religion of Islam is about. There are some Canadians who believe that the acts carried out by the terrorists were sanctioned or dictated by Islamic law. In reality these were criminal acts of political terrorism by cowardly extremists in direct contravention of Islamic law.

The term Islam means peace. Muslims around the world believe that peace and tolerance are the very essence of faith. The terrorists who attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have violated the Holy Koran and Islamic values.

A common Muslim greeting, as-Salam-u-Alaikum , means may peace be upon you. The word jihad simply means that each individual must strive to be the best he or she can be.

For example, Muslims are in an internal struggle to prevent themselves from committing bad deeds. Jihad does not mean a physical holy war against other human beings as has been frequently said in the media. Therefore committing violent acts against the innocent is not part of jihad but rather is a sin against the Holy Koran. There is no mention in the Holy Koran about committing violent acts against non-Muslims.

Media reports have identified the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be Islamic. However their motives were not in keeping with Islam. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, but his attack on the U.S. government buildings in Oklahoma City was not motivated by Christian beliefs. Deranged people carried out all these deplorable political acts of terrorism.

In Muslim mosques across Canada and other countries prayers have been held for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attack. Muslim groups across Canada such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and Muslims Against Terrorism have condemned the attack because it goes against our values of peace and harmony.

I implore all Canadians to unite in this time of crisis and fortify our strength of diversity. We are a multicultural nation, the envy of the world, and as such we must collectively fight terrorism by working together to protect our freedom.

Most of us in the House travelled from different parts of the country to get here. In the airports we witnessed a sense of uneasiness and vulnerability on the faces of those travelling with us. Canadians are looking to us, their elected leaders, for a response to the acts of atrocity. We need legislation to tighten up the loopholes that have aided the cause of terrorism on Canadian soil.

I am not here today to point fingers and lay blame. I believe that we must follow the example of our American neighbours and put aside partisan differences to address the immediate security needs of Canadians. The government opposite must address the deficiencies present in its national security policy. To do so is not admitting culpability but rather accepting the responsibility of protecting the lives and livelihood of Canadians.

Canadians watched in horror as the terrorist attacks were carried out on the United States. It struck at the heart of our sense of morality and freedom. However what amplified the horror was the possibility that some of these evil men had travelled through Canada on their journey.

This news is not surprising, given the numerous reports highlighting the presence of terrorist organizations in Canada and the ease with which they abuse our humanitarian initiatives to settle refugees. The Prime Minister's face saving response last week that there is no need to revisit our security policies was unacceptable.

As a newly appointed critic for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency I will address the role of Revenue Canada in the fight against terrorism. We are a trading nation. As a result of NAFTA over $1 billion a day crosses the U.S.-Canada border. This activity has fuelled our economy, sustained job growth and allowed Canadian families to prosper.

National revenues required to fund tax cuts, health care, education spending and debt reduction are contingent upon our trading relationship with the United States.

In what seemed to be a veiled message to Canada, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated last week:

--some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. For those nations thatwe believe can do a better job of policing their borders, of going after this kind of activity, we're going to work with them. We're gonna make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they're measured with respect to their relationship with the United States--

One measure available to the U.S. is to implement section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. This initiative implements mandatory entrance and exit checks at the U.S. border crossings. In effect, all foreign nationals, including Canadians, would be required to register when entering and exiting the United States.

The U.S. has postponed implementing section 110 until adequate technology can be developed to expedite this process with minimal delays. This week commercial traffic attempting to enter the United States from border crossings in the Niagara region are experiencing 9 to 12 hour waits. These extreme measures may become the norm if the government does not take action to rectify our border security.

There was much ado this summer about an open border with the United States. This concept was being entertained by a desire on the part of the U.S. and Canadian industry to minimize the encumbrance of border security in order to maximize the efficiency of moving people, products and capital across our border. Yet from a national security perspective, we must ensure that those people, products and capital entering Canada are not economic, medical or criminal risks.

The growing success of the NAFTA relationship in conjunction with the emergence of e-commerce and the growing needs of just in time manufacturing have put increased pressure on our border crossings.

The Canada-United States accord on our shared border was signed in 1995. Its goal had four key points: to promote international trade, to streamline processes for legitimate travellers and commercial goods, to provide enhanced protection against drug smuggling and the illegal entrance of people, and to reduce costs for both governments.

One response to this accord is Bill S-23 which is about to be introduced in this House. Bill S-23 includes many electronic systems used to expedite and track cross border commercial traffic. I believe these initiatives can only be entertained once the integrity of our borders is ascertained.

Bringing to light the inadequacies of Canada's national security is a wake-up call in the midst of a nightmare unfolding on the east coast of the United States. Canadians may not be aware of our porous borders; however every terrorist organization, drug cartel and organized crime operation in the world is fully aware of these deficiencies and have been exploiting them for years. Canada's porous border is by no means a reflection of the men and women who serve as customs officers. It is the reality of naive and irresponsible government policy. A philosophical shift in Liberal policy is required.

In 1994 Bill C-7 moved customs from a security mandate to the Department of National Revenue. Its prime objective is to recover tax and duty revenue for the crown. We must give our customs officers the tools, resources and the mandate required to protect our borders from those who are intent on destruction. If Canada is not willing to increase its standard of national security, the United States will not be willing to jeopardize the safety and security of the American people by continuing an undefended border with Canada. Such a decision will have an incredible impact on our economy.

I believe that Canada must take the lead in implementing a continental security agreement among NAFTA partners, particularly with the United States. This must include shared intelligence, including exit and entrance data and criminal profiling. Such an agreement is not an erosion of our cultural identity or our national sovereignty, as some would have us believe. It would serve to protect our trading and diplomatic relationship with the U.S. thereby serving to stabilize our economy and protect our citizens.

The federal government must first of all admit that there is a problem of terrorist activity in Canada and resolve to work with the United States in a legitimate partnership to secure our borders and protect our citizens and economies from future attack. The government's only response to terrorism thus far has been Bill C-16 which states that those Canadian charities found to be financially aiding terrorist organizations will be stripped of their charitable status. This is a baby step in the marathon fight to eradicate terrorism. Canadians expect much broader and tougher legislation to follow.

In closing, I would like to repeat my appeal to Canadians to unite during this time of crisis and embrace the strength of our diversity. Our Islamic neighbours are bearing a double burden. Not only are we grieving over the horrendous loss of life, we are bearing the burden of misplaced blame upon our community.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I join the minister today in congratulating and commending all the customs agents and people at our borders who are working as hard as they can to do their jobs as effectively as they can. The minister is right to take the time to congratulate them for their hard work and effort.

More important, the minister identified areas on which the government will focus to solve some of the problems we have at our border crossings. He mentioned the need of customs agents, who are at the frontline of attack, to be able to both identify potential high risk people going across the border and facilitate the commerce part of things. I think that is of concern to a lot of Canadians.

However we hear from a lot of our customs agents at the border that one of their biggest problems is lack of resources. As the minister has mentioned, even though we have added more customs agents at the border their tools and resources for doing their jobs are limited. Unfortunately this results in the fact that they cannot be as thorough as they potentially could be.

The minister mentioned new technologies and a few other things for addressing the issue. Could the minister be more specific in the House today and give us an exact numerical value for these resources? What specific tools will he be giving to our agents at the frontline to allow them to do their jobs more effectively?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a tragic week for all humanity. Not only were thousands killed as a result of terrorist attacks in the U.S., in Canada minority groups, in particular the Canadian Islamic community, have been victimized by acts of violence and threats. School children have been threatened; mosques have been fire bombed and businesses vandalized. Many Canadians are in fear of their own lives in Canada.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What is his government's plan to end these threatening acts and punish those who commit them?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, stated: “Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain strong”. Our economy is dependent upon our trading relationship with the U.S. and cannot survive a sustained slowdown at our borders.

My question is for the revenue minister. What customs initiatives has he undertaken to secure our borders from terrorism in order to protect Canadians?

[Canadian Muslims, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the only Muslim elected to parliament in Canada, it gives me great sadness not only to have witnessed what happened in the U.S. but the backlash against the Islamic community over the last week.

Most Canadians realize the value of living in a multicultural society and the strength the country has because of its diversity. I fear that due to a perverse interpretation of Islam by an extreme few a whole community is at risk of being painted with the same brush.

Canadian Muslims have come far and wide to make Canada their home because they share the values of peace, freedom and democracy. These values are cherished and this country loved due to the opportunity it has given all Canadians, all races and creeds. Most are willing to fight and die for Canada.

Now is the time for all Canadians to link arms together regardless of origin, race or religion, to fight the terrorist threat and not to turn on each other. We must remember that we are no better than the faceless cowards who committed these acts in the U.S. if we turn on our own communities at home with violence or threatening acts.

I am proud to be a Canadian and equally proud to be a member of the Islamic community, a group that has contributed so much to this great nation.

[Grants And Contributions, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is not it because the minister is shirking his legal obligation. His officials already went to Shawinigan. They found that the corporate records were inaccurate and they asked that they be updated. However they did not look at the bill of sale.

Part IV of the Business Corporations Act states “a corporation shall prepare and maintain adequate accounting records...for a period of six years”.

There is obvious doubt about when that bill of sale was handwritten.

Will the minister ensure the accuracy of this most important record, the Prime Minister's bill of sale?