Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, over the years when I have gone to my ports of entry I have always been received very cordially by both sides. That was the case last week. Perhaps they had not received this directive as yet.

I do know of the letter my colleague has spoken about. When a customs officer with many years of training and service opens a file and shows the people he has tried to apprehend without any protection, I can understand what my colleague is saying. If individuals are employees of Canada customs it does not mean they have to zipper their lips.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be a Canadian. I also recognize what has been going on in this country for the last nine or ten years: forgery, corruption and illegal immigrants. We stood here and took a lot of flak because we kept reporting this. I am glad nobody yells across the way that I am anti-immigrant. Nobody in my constituency would ever believe that.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the topic tonight and the motion as it relates to the people of my constituency, which is in southeastern Saskatchewan. We share miles of border with the United States. We touch two states, Montana and North Dakota. My constituency probably has more points of entry, nine of them, than any other constituency in Canada.

The events of September 11 have touched rural Saskatchewan. They have even touched my constituency. Last week we had our first anthrax scare.

If the government were doing the right thing with radio, TV and newspapers, ads should be going out explaining to people how to react if they open their mail and white powder falls out. It has not done that. Not only has it not done that, but it has not warned people. It has not warned the hoaxers and the pranksters of the penalty for becoming involved in such an act.

Great Britain and the United States have enacted legislation to deal with hoaxers. In both cases it is automatic jail time. We are one week away from celebrating Halloween and no doubt there will be hoaxers scaring people. The government should show people what it is doing to curb the epidemic which has already killed people in the United States.

People are concerned about our military, which has gone overseas. In the U.S. and the U.K. this is a time of war. War has not been officially declared, as Canada did in 1914 and 1939, but the question that is being asked is simply this. During this war on terrorism will our service personnel, if they are harmed, hurt or even killed, have the same benefits as they would have if the nation declared war? The government has left this question completely wide open.

For the last eight years Canadians have read almost weekly in every paper across Canada about the problems in our immigration system. We have heard a lot today about them. I would like to cite some figures so that people watching get an idea of what this party has been talking about since 1993. Between 1993 and 1997 over 99% of refugee claimant applications were deemed eligible to go through the refugee determination process.

In other words they would come to the border, apply for refugee status, and 99% came in. Once these applicants appeared before the refugee board it took an average of 2.5 years to go through the appeals process to reach a final determination. During that period of time only 22% of rejected applicants were confirmed to have left the country. The story is all there.

This country became blinded to what was going on. The government would not listen to experts from around the world or from those within our own country. It allowed this to go on and now Canada has established a reputation which will take a long time to cure.

There are many things we can do to co-operate with our neighbours, not just in forming the shield of protection around North America but we could take a look at border crossings.

Last week I visited two of the nine border crossings in my riding. Officials were busy preparing and changing for the onslaught that may be coming. We were on the Canadian side. The U.S. announced that it will be asking people to report not only upon entry into the U.S. but also as they leave the U.S. This is something entirely new and I wonder why the U.S. is doing it.

For example, if people come from the U.S. into Canada they traditionally do not stop at U.S. customs. They stop at Canadian customs. If they want to make a run for it, and that has happened, the only choice the poor Canadian customs officer has is to phone the closest detachment of the RCMP.

I have border crossings in my constituency where it would take an RCMP officer an hour to get there because the detachments have all been halved by the government. If it was a three man detachment, it will now have one officer or maybe two. If it was a four man detachment, it will only have two officers.

Canada is ill prepared. All the border crossings or ports of entry, as we call them, in the United States are manned 24 hours a day. One of the reasons the U.S. is pleading to have individuals stopping in both directions is that it cannot trust the Canadian immigration system any more. We should be ashamed that we have sunk to a low level.

The U.S. did not withdraw, as one of the members indicated, the Canpass card. Many people in my constituency have Canpass cards. It is a simple card for a select group of people that can pass back and forth with no problem.

The Canadian government panicked and cancelled the cards but the United States did not. Many of my constituents go to school in the United States and some of them work there. Many were born in the U.S. simply because they were closer to a hospital there. The Canadian government panicked and put a wall up against the very people it trusted to have the Canpass card in the first place.

Canada and the United States need to work together on the trucking industry. We have horrendous long lineups. There is a tremendous extra cost and time wasted by drivers. Canada to date has made no attempt to meet with its counterparts to discuss these border stoppages. Trucks line up and wait for an hour or sometimes three. All of that is costing us dearly. It is costing truckers a lot of money and it will cost Canadians a lot of money.

Yes, we can co-operate with the United States in many areas and we should. It wants to co-operate with us. We need to recognize that we are a continental country. We need to recognize that we have not done our share with regard to immigration and the terrorists who lived in our country.

I saw some T-shirts the other day. I wanted to buy one but they were all sold out. It said “God Bless North America”. It is time for Canadians to be a bit humble and say, no, we have not lived up to where we should have been going and we will co-operate fully with the motion so that we can have a safe North America in which to live in.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have before me, and I have read for many years now, long before I was elected to the House, a total condemnation of our immigration policy. We have received a lot of criticism this way. We are not hearing it now.

Would the member not agree that the very fact the government panicked and brought in a new immigration policy is an open testament that the previous policy was sorely lacking?

[Sale of Poppies, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 70th anniversary of Canadians proudly wearing poppies. Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae immortalized the poppy in his famous poem In Flanders Fields . The poppy symbolizes the sacrifices that have been made so that we can enjoy our freedoms today.

The Pickering Public Library Board has in my opinion insulted the Royal Canadian Legion by classifying this fraternal service body as a charity. This year, 2001, is the 75th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion and the 70th anniversary of the poppy. Every public establishment in Canada should consider it an honour to participate in the sale of poppies.

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the third party is the individual or group of individuals from which the first nations are making the purchase. Having said that, once that land goes into reserve or into specified land claims, does the local government, the village or rural municipality have the flexibility in the services which it must provide under the act at the present time?

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that it would give first nations flexibility and I appreciate that. Will the local governments that will lose taxation on properties that are being acquired have flexibility in the service they have to provide under the current legislation?

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister announce the bill. I wish we would have had a little time to take a look at it. It was introduced last week and now it is Monday and it is here.

I think it is incumbent upon the minister to make sure people understand the different terminology in the bill. I come from a rural area where there are at least seven first nations. People understand the term reserve but, other than the first nations people, they do not understand the terms specific claims, additional land and so on.

The minister mentioned that Bill C-37 had the consent or approval of the government and provincial governments. I want to say something about the bill that will need to be mentioned in committee. Does the bill have the understanding and support of local governments? In the past we have run into some real difficulties, as the minister knows.

Let us say that 10 sections are added to a given reserve. The taxes from those 10 sections would no longer be available to the local government which would have that many fewer dollars to put toward road, schools and so on.

The minister should be cognizant of this if he wants clear passage and total acceptability of the bill. We need to do some work with the local governments. I know that in Saskatchewan it is the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the municipal governments at the places from which the land is being extracted. We have a problem there.

We also have another problem. As most members know, Saskatchewan and Alberta were not added to Confederation until 1905. While the minerals in other areas remained with the land or purchaser thereof, in Saskatchewan the minerals remained for the most part with the crown. I believe the hon. member mentioned 1930. One of the difficulties we have, even in my constituency, is that the minerals on lands in the eastern portion belong to the crown. As immigration and settlements moved west after 1905, the minerals went with the land when it was purchased.

Conceivably we would be adding 10 sections of land to a current day reserve. Under the previous owner the minerals belonged to the crown. The property owner did not have the minerals. As the property is moved to a reserve the minerals will go to the crown and there could be some problems with that.

I have some real concerns but not about the expansion. I agree with the minister, I think most people in general want the treaties to go forward, to get them out of the way and, for lack of a better word, to get on with the show. Let us make this happen but in doing so let us make sure we notify all partners and that everybody is aware of what is going on. That is very necessary.

To draw an analogy, my constituency had its first anthrax scare way out in a rural area in a village with maybe 20 people.I do not want to get into the details but they have never been told anything. Nothing has gone out as to what to do, who to call or what to expect. There is a lack of government information and explanation, a lack of printed government policy, a lack of PR with the newspapers, particularly in the area concerned. Those things are imperative.

I hope the minister will take my advice. As he goes into the specific land claims and the addition to the reserves, he would be well advised that people in that area have an understanding. Once there is an understanding there is more apt to be agreement with what is going on. That is necessary.

We will let the bill go to committee. We will support it at this point. However I am quite sure that when the bill gets to committee there will be a lot of questions. We will be asking questions not just on the part of the first nations, but also on the part of local government.

Something has to be clarified. The first nations people want to be called first nations. The result of mammoth research and, I believe, the 1988 booklet was that they want to be called first nations. Throughout the bill the minister refers to first nations, but the word Indian is still being used. They no longer want to be called Indians. Throughout the Indian Act, which we are going to look at, that word is used. Both terms are being used. We should not be doing that. Let us be consistent in using one term.

Finally, let us hope that in committee we will allow enough time to carefully look at not only the first nations people but other people who are affected. We must carefully look at the rural municipalities or other landowners who lose property or have the property consumed and what their rights are and what provisions will be given to local governments so that they may carry on their work. In the past in settling land claims the relationships between the parties have soured in many of the rural municipalities in my constituency and they remain that way today. Let us hope we can avoid that in the future.

[Strychnine Solutions, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this issue is of grave concern to western Canada. The government has totally ignored the loss of millions up to billions of dollars. If people in the west lose their crop as a result of deer or elk they are paid for it. If they lose their crop because of water fowl they are paid for it. This year on the prairies more crops were lost to gophers than any other thing yet the government came out with something that did not kill the gophers. As I said in the petitions I read in the House, if anything it made them more virile.

It is time we did something about this other than just getting the papers back. Let us be armed next spring so we can at least have a chance in this infestation to grow a crop.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate, particularly because the government moved so quickly. Much of the work that went into the bill should have been done years ago but nonetheless it is before us now.

A few years ago the Royal Canadian Legion had a motto “If you can't remember, think”. There are many people in the House today, and no doubt many people watching, who cannot remember certain events in our history. I remember very well the events of September 3, 1939. I remember September 10, 1939, when Canada declared war. I was only a boy. At the time I heard some of the funniest statements one would ever want to hear, but none as vicious as a statement I heard on September 11, 2001, on Canadian television. I will get back to that later.

On December 7, 1941, a Sunday morning I remember like yesterday, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Do members know what I heard in this country? I heard that the United States had it coming. I would like members to recall that date in 1941. Canadians and we in the House had better thank God we had the United States as an ally. If not, we would probably not be sitting here enjoying the freedom we are enjoying this very day.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, my Ottawa office staff phoned me and said they had been asked to leave. They told me to turn on my television. As I sat having breakfast with my wife, I said that before the day was over I would hear some of the same crapola I heard following December 7, 1941. Sure enough, all day long on September 11, 2001, and in the days that followed I have heard that the United States had it coming.

The statements were not made by anyone in the House because the House was not in session. However the CBC carried some programs that made me sick to my stomach. They defamed our partner and ally through two world wars. They blamed the whole thing on the United States.

There are people in the House who say the United Nations should take the lead role rather than the United States. I am sorry, but one of our UN nations admitted the other day that it had within its borders many of the same people whose names are on the list for terrorism. Sweden, a member of the United Nations, said it could not do anything about it until these people broke a law.

We do not need to worry about the bill going too far because it will not need an examination in three years. It will need to be expanded before then. I do not think for one moment that we have seen the last of the war on terrorism. There is a whole lot more coming. If there is one theme I would like to leave the Chamber with it is this: No one's rights can ever exceed the nation's right to security.

We pick up the papers and read all these things about sweeping rights. We read that lawyers and civil rights people have concerns. No one's rights can ever exceed the right to have a secure nation. We must be cognizant of this fact: We did not have the charter of rights during World War II but the security of the nation was utmost in everybody's mind.

We came a lot closer to having war on our very soil on September 11 than we did during those five years of conflict. Canadians were killed not many miles south of the border.

We have this hogwash in Canada that to be a true Canadian one must somehow hate the Americans. It is generated. When I listen to certain university professors, and everyone probably knows the one I am referring to, I wonder what kind of message they are sending our students and young people who attend university. It is shameful. It is disgraceful for the nation.

Let us look at our charter for a moment. Let us look at what happened in Seattle. Do we have freedom of assembly? Yes, we do. Do we have freedom of expression? Everything is freedom of expression in this country but who gets all the attention? Was the Operation SalAMI meeting a legal meeting? Yes, it was. Were the protesters given legal rights? Yes, they were. The same was true in Quebec. However we must always put our weight on the ability of security forces to protect a legally constituted meeting.

We need to re-examine some of these things. We hear people in the House, mainly members of the NDP, say we should not get involved in the campaign against terrorism. We should not get involved? The Minister of National Defence knows full well that any boat could pull into Toronto harbour undetected and blast away. It is possible. We need to think of the security of the nation more than we need to think of individual rights. This is terror.

I represent a rural constituency. This morning at 9 o'clock some people picked up their mail from a small post office in my riding. They took it home and opened it and powder was in the envelope. They were not ready for that. Neither was the RCMP. After nine hours someone finally came and picked up the envelope. A lady is now receiving precautionary antibiotics.

We need to state clearly to the Canadian people that this is not the end of the crisis. Canada is subject to attack in any place and at any time. The question is not so much whether we must go back and re-examine Bill C-36. The question well may be whether we must strengthen its measures for greater security. That may sound a bit rough for some people. However let us not worry about our individual rights. Let us worry about the security of our country.

In our country and in my province we have terrorism of a different sort. Bill C-36's definition of terrorism fits what is happening in some of our cities. Homes are being raided and destroyed. People are being molested. That is terrorism, even as defined by Bill C-36. The powers of the bill, which some call wide and sweeping but which I call common sense, could be applied to the domestic scene as well.

I am proud to support the bill but there is one thing I want to see forgotten. I want to see Canada take a far different approach through its media, the CBC and its town halls. We must stop thinking that to be Canadian we need to defame the United States.

It is about time. We enjoy our security because of our partnership with the United States. We do not enjoy any misdoings of United States events as our allies in World War I or World War II. It is time now that Canadians realize that.