Candice Bergen

[Petitions, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents of Portage—Lisgar.

Both petitions state that Canada is the only western nation, along with North Korea, to have no laws protecting unborn children.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to enact legislation that would extend protection to unborn children in Canada.

[Border Crossings, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the facts really do speak for themselves. When travel volumes do not support long hours at border crossings, they need to be examined. If appropriate, changes need to be made. This is reasonable.

I can assure members these were sound decisions that were made through tight fiscal management and the pursuit of a sound strategic agenda. They were made in a way that enables the CBSA to still meet the needs of the surrounding community without compromising security. Security was not compromised, jobs were not lost and taxpayer dollars are being better spent. I know the CBSA will continue to provide the kind of service at the border that Canadians have grown to expect and deserve, keeping travel and trade flowing while ensuring safety and security.

[Border Crossings, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, there are approximately 7,300 uniformed officers who clear over 90 million travellers and process over 13 million commercial releases each year in Canada. I can assure the member that our government is focused on ensuring our border is secure while easing the flow of legitimate travel and trade.

We are doing this through initiatives such as the action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness and the action plan on regulatory co-operation. These were both announced by our Prime Minister and President Obama in December of last year. As the Prime Minister said:

We are pursuing an ambitious global trade agenda while at the same time ensuring enhanced access to the United States, our largest and most important trading partner. Together, these agreements represent the most significant step forward in Canada–U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement.

These action plans are a step in the right direction.

Let me assure the member opposite that we have not stopped there. We are also investing in border infrastructure including new lanes at the busiest crossings. We cannot forget that the CBSA must ensure that people and goods are cleared as quickly as possible, without compromising the safety and security of Canadians. I also would like to remind the House that we are accountable to taxpayers. We must ensure that operations are carried out in a cost-effective and responsible manner. That is why it is important for my hon. colleague to understand the actions taken by the CBSA.

With that in mind, I would like to set the record straight about the statement made by the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi about the reduction of hours at three border crossings in his riding. At East Pinnacle, for example, border operations were reduced by eight hours. This port of entry now closes at 4 p.m. instead of midnight. There is a 24/7 port of entry only 10 kilometres away. With only 58 travellers per day, reducing the hours made good sense. The second port of entry in question is Glen Sutton. This port of entry processed 37 people a day. I am sure even my hon. colleague would have a hard time justifying a 24/7 port of entry for only 37 people per day. Since the port of entry down the road, 11.5 kilometres away, also has 24/7 service, it was clear that reducing the hours to 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. was more realistic and operationally sound. The last port of entry that reduced its hours is Morses Line. This port of entry is now open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the 84 travellers who use it daily. After 4 p.m., travellers proceed to Saint Armand–Phillipsburg 13 kilometres away where service is provided 24/7.

The rationale for the decisions to reduce hours at ports of entry is to ensure that operations are not only cost effective but also as efficient as possible. These are difficult decisions, but they make sense. The CBSA was able to do this while keeping its mandate intact and still providing excellent service by dedicated professionals. This is good border management which the government expects and Canadians deserve.

[Public Safety, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, double occupancy is a common practice in western countries. It is done in other countries. We will always comply with our UN obligations.

[Public Safety, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the NDP are again concerned with the morale of inmates. Double bunking is a common practice used in western countries. We use it as a temporary measure when needed. We want to put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of prisoners. We want our corrections system to actually correct criminal behaviour.

[Border Crossings, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the facts have been presented and they are clear. Our government is focused on ensuring our borders are secure while easing barriers on the legitimate flow of travel and trade. We are investing in border infrastructure to support this objective, including new lanes at the busiest crossings. We continually look at all of our programs while demonstrating sensitivity to the realities of field operations and the demand to exercise a national mandate for border services.

CBSA always uses its expertise to ensure that the best possible solutions are put forward. These are solutions that not only continue to ensure the safety and security of Canadians but also ensure that their tax dollars are being used properly. Canadians can expect that the CBSA will continue to provide us with the best possible border services to keep us safe and will continue to do so in a cost-effective and efficient manner.

[Border Crossings, March 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have addressed this question. This has been addressed in question period and it also has been addressed previously in adjournment proceedings in the House. As well, the former president of the CBSA appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security over a year ago to discuss this issue. However, for the benefit of my new colleague and in response to the question put forward by the hon. member, I would like to reiterate some key facts to put things into some much-needed perspective so that we can stop the spin and fearmongering.

There are approximately 1,200 border ports of service across Canada. Any service decision is made after a lengthy and detailed review has been completed, taking into account the cost effectiveness and operational needs. The two ports of entry in question, Jamieson's Line and Franklin Centre, were underused ports of entry that simply did not warrant being operational any longer. When reviewed, Jamieson's Line had only 12 travellers per day. With a 24/7 port of entry a mere 10 kilometres away, it made no economic sense to maintain this operation. The second port of entry, Franklin Centre, saw only 56 travellers per day and there is a 24/7 point of entry only 16 kilometres away. Clearly, these decisions are in line with what is always our goal: the most effective and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

We are focused on ensuring our shared border is secure while easing the flow of legitimate travel and trade. Where it makes sense, we are investing in border infrastructure to support this objective, including new lanes at the busiest crossings. In fact, just last week the Minister of Public Safety announced the official opening of the NEXUS lane at the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge. As the minister stated, “This NEXUS lane is very good news for businesses, tourists and other travellers alike, as it will improve the flow of legitimate trade and travel, while enhancing security”.

These decisions are proof that any decision made which affects travellers is done carefully and with the utmost consideration for border security and the economy. When faced with the reality of tighter budgets and the requirement to align scarce resources in a responsible and cost-effective way, difficult decisions must be made.

While the decisions made for the CBSA's strategic review were difficult ones, they were the right ones. They were the right ones for the economy because it now means that taxpayers' dollars are being put to better use and Canadians are being served better.

I am sure my hon. colleague will now agree that in these uncertain times, this makes sense.

[Public Safety, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning, but not surprising, that the NDP would extend its soft on crime ideology to attacking a sitting judge. NDP candidate Craig Scott's report was shut down by the courts and described as gratuitous, intemperate, ideological and falling well short of the mark.

Attacking judges for not adopting a left-wing, soft on crime stance shows how irresponsible and reckless the New Democrats are.

[Public Safety, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is being very misleading. We have very clear directives. We expect CSIS to comply and it does comply with those directives. There are Canadian laws that have to be upheld. We do not condone torture.

In all of our decisions regarding the safety of Canadians, that is our number one priority. Those directives are in line with that.

[Public Safety, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is completely wrong. Our government does not condone and certainly does not engage in torture. The directives are very clear: CSIS will only share information in accordance with Canada's legal obligations.