Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on behalf of the PC/DR coalition. I will begin my remarks by rebutting some of the comments made by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. I count him as a colleague. We worked together on the immigration committee, but I profoundly disagree with the assertions he made in his speech today.
I will begin by rebutting the statement that can be construed as being anti-American. At this time in our history this is not the time to proceed along this way of thinking. The United States has been looking for diplomatic solutions to the problem. It has not retaliated with a quick strike. Are the Americans responding? Yes they are and so they should, and we should be supporting them and be with them as well.
They are looking at economic and multilateral solutions to this crisis, They are bringing people along with them rather than striking quickly in some act of revenge as the member seems to be portraying.
The United States is a country that has welcomed immigrants from around the world. That was evident in the fact that there were individuals tragically taken from 62 different countries in the event in New York City. Let us not kid ourselves or try to pretend that our American friends and very close family are not a strong country, a welcoming country or a tolerant society because they are a tolerant and welcoming society. We have more in common with our friends from the United States than the member seems to know.
I want to rebut that way of thinking, particularly at this time, and send a message to our American friends that all members in this place would not be in sympathy with that kind of thinking because this is a time for action.
I want to turn to the bill before us today, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you in the chair. I know that you are a learned and wise member of the House. I congratulate you on your ascendancy to the chair.
I might add that I was disappointed in some of the comments made by the Minister of National Revenue this morning. In the face of what has happened in the world, it seems the government is carrying on as though nothing has changed. We are living in a different world now because of the tragic events that happened on September 11. It appears as though the government has simply blown the dust off a bill it had before this place previously, added a few comments in the minister's speech at the beginning and end, and has continued on as though nothing has changed.
The Americans' response to this tragic event was to gather congress together. They put together in 24 hours a detailed bill that reflected the new realities of what was happening in the United States, the amount of money that would be required to rebuild in New York and to increase security. Within 24 hours there was a detail coming together and response of America's leaders.
What do we have today in this place? A dusted off bill that does not address the new realities as a result of the tragic events of September 11. That is a shame. It demonstrates a lack of leadership from the government to address the details that need to be addressed.
I agree with my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona who proposed an amendment that the bill be withdrawn for reconsideration because it does not adequately address the new realities before us in our world, in our country and in dealing with our biggest trading partner and closest friend, the United States.
The minister today in the House talked about the management of our borders as an evolving process. I agree. It is going to evolve very quickly in ways that Canada needs to be engaged in and prepared to act together with. The evolving processes could very well be that the Americans say to us that they are moving on, that they want a secure border and perimeter around North America because our systems are so integrated. Individuals who come to Canada do have easy access to the United States. I do not think it is unreasonable for our neighbours to the south to ask us to work together with them. We need to do that and do it in more than just words. We need to commit by action.
I would submit that the bill demonstrates the level of commitment that the government has to making substantive changes that will make an effect.
One of my Liberal colleagues mentioned that there were long border lineups. Yes, there are and that will continue for a while.
The minister talked about a CANPASS program, a NEXUS program and a kiosk program to help speed up trade. We had better give our heads a shake if we think that the Americans will not look at those programs to see if they need to be revised. We had better get into the game with our good friend and closest ally because very quickly we could find ourselves on the outside looking in. Should that happen, that will have a huge impact on our economy, on our way of life and on our values.
I do not know if other members heard the speech by the president last night. One thing I noticed was that he was firm in his resolve. He has the American people, a united congress, the senate and the leadership of the entire nation solidly behind him and he is moving ahead to gather that kind of support worldwide.
I submitted earlier this week to the government that it had the same environment within Canada in terms of people wanting to support our friends and allies. The polls showed that approximately 80% of the people wanted us to help and support our closest ally. Yet we see very little concrete action. We hear words. We helped out at the very beginning. I acknowledge that and I congratulate those involved. It is time to continue on helping in concrete practical ways.
The bill fails to address those realities. We have many border crossings in our country that are not open 24 hours a day. They have remote cameras and close at 10 o'clock at night or midnight. Those are things that have to be considered in this new reality.
Are there many access points from Canada to the United States? Yes, there are. Do we want freer trade with America? Yes, of course we do. However, to ignore the new realities of what has happened in our world is just simply wrong. To ignore those new realities borders on negligence from the government because our country's economy is so integrated with the Untied States.
I and members of our coalition would liked to have seen, and I think all opposition members would have liked to have seen, some leadership from the minister on this bill in a way that would address these kinds of concerns that I am bringing forward.
I want to focus on one particular aspect of the bill called voluntary compliance. The minister talked about it this morning.
Let us spell out for people what that actually means. What that means is that on the Atlantic coast and on the coast of British Columbia ships arriving with goods are to call into a customs branch. That is what voluntary compliance means. We do have large unprotected borders.
If people were abusing the goodwill and freedoms of this country by engaging in an illegal activity, would they, as they arrived on our shores, pick up the phone and say that they are here, that they are bringing in illegal contraband and that they will be moving through the United States? No, that will not happen. We have a system in place that does not address those kinds of things in light of the new realities that happened as a result of September 11.
Last night in this place one of my colleagues from the Liberal side mentioned that we should not be talking about this as a battle of good and evil, that we just need to address the root causes and concerns of this issue. The real issue is about those who would do things that are evil. It is about a battle between good and evil. Though there may be just a few engaged in that, those few can wreak havoc among the many, as we sorely found out. For us to put our head in the sand and continue on as though nothing has changed is simply wrong.
Another colleague from the Liberal side quoted President Roosevelt, in a time of similar circumstances, going into World War II. He drew on the famous comment made that Americans should walk softly and carry a big stick. It seems as though the motto of this government has become to walk blindly and carry an empty bag of promises because there is a lot of talk but not enough action.
The actions we have seen from the government during its eight years in power are slowly starving the resources of our intelligence division, CSIS, within the RCMP, the RCMP and immigration funding, and an integrated approach to sharing intelligence information between those different agencies. It has had an impact and we are reaping the benefits of what the government's policies have been in those areas for these past eight years.
We would hope there would be quick response, in light of the events of September 11, to put more resources into those areas and to consider working closely with our friends in the United States. We need to look at the idea of a perimeter in which we are on the inside instead of a perimeter where we are on the outside looking in, as my colleague from the NDP would seem to want.
I want to touch on something my colleague from Edmonton--Strathcona mentioned in his speech. He eloquently described his own experience as a refugee fleeing from Uganda under the regime of Idi Amin.
I want to disavow the false argument that to consider increasing security within our nation has to go hand in hand with the notion that we no longer welcome immigrants or refugees to our country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can look at increasing security in this country, and we must, but at the same time we can remain a country with a very strong immigration policy that supports the foundation of our country which was built on immigration.
At the same time, not to address security issues in that area and others is simply negligent and cannot be done.
Over the last seven to ten days many of us have been taken with the events that have happened and how they have changed our world forever. There is a lot of concern for many people, but there is concern on this side of the House that the government will handle this situation as it has handled others over and over again, and that is to sit and wait.
We have heard the talking points of taking a balanced approach. Yes, that is good. However, what has happened too often with the Liberal government is that a balanced approach has become a catch phrase for doing absolutely nothing when something needs to be done and leadership needs to be shown. If there were ever a time in our nation when our country, our neighbour's country and our world were looking for leadership, it is now.
I regret that the Minister of National Revenue has simply dusted off the bill from whence it came and reintroduced it without considering the new realities that happened as a result of September 11.
I will read some commentary from a news article of today in the Toronto Star . It says:
But nothing in the proposed bill, which goes back to the Commons for second reading today, is new. Nor have amendments or tighter border controls been introduced to the bill since last Tuesday's terror attacks on the U.S. It was first tabled and passed in the Senate last spring in a bid to speed trade over the border.
Further on in the article it states:
Top customs officials admitted to reporters it would be difficult to refuse a CANPASS to anyone who was, like “sleeper” terrorists in the U.S., perfectly integrated into the community with no criminal history.
A CANPASS is an expedited pass to get people back and forth across the border.
The above article is part of this new reality. If we think we can continue on without some implications of the events that have occurred in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, we are dreaming. The government is sleepwalking.
A better approach would have been to get the experts in this area together, to consult with our colleagues across the border to address the new concerns that have arisen as a result of last week's events. That has not happened. It certainly is not reflected in the actions of the bill before us. It is beyond me how we can pretend to continue on in this place without taking concrete actions to address these problems.
It is my hope that we as leaders in this place get on with striking committees quickly and with getting the people involved in trade to the table here. We must make the concrete changes necessary to address the new realities. We hope the government's motto will not be to walk blindly and carry a bag of empty promises. It must take concrete action. It has the will of the people and the support of the opposition parties to make these changes.
We implore the government to do the right thing and not pass this bill, which does not address the concerns, but get on with making the concrete changes that are necessary.
