Mr. Speaker, the clock shows of course that it is at least 6:30 p.m. The hon. member does not have 45 seconds left. His time has expired. He will have to speak some other time.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 38% of the vote.
Privilege November 3rd, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the clock shows of course that it is at least 6:30 p.m. The hon. member does not have 45 seconds left. His time has expired. He will have to speak some other time.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh. He speaks with a calmness and a reasonable approach in terms of his argument that allows us to understand not only his perspective but more plentifully the size and magnitude of this very serious problem.
It is not the first time, certainly in contemporary times, where a decision taken in the United States will have far-reaching impacts well beyond its border. I am thinking of course of matters that will also affect us in the not too distant future: the issue of solid waste as well as the issue of daylight savings time.
It seems to me that the member is certainly on to something as far as how we handle this issue. He has pointed out that an initiative to deal with Americans returning to their own country with passports, from almost a purely domestic perspective, seems to be at variance and odds with what the American government and two other nations signed not more than seven months ago with the security and prosperity partnership of North America.
I spoke very briefly with the hon. member beforehand. If I am to read the agreement that was concluded between Canada, Mexico and the United States when they gathered in Waco, Texas in March of this year, it talks among other things about the establishment of a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats. The agreement was concluded to respond to threats within North America; further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate low risk traffic across borders; implement a common border security via protection strategies; and implement border facilitation strategy to build a capacity to improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo.
It sounds to me as if this particular agreement which took place well after the legislation had passed is not just a sleeper issue but it shows perhaps a dichotomy in the United States of what the executive branch is saying and doing, and what legislators are doing at the same time.
It may also help express the very short period of time in which we have been provided comment. As the hon. member knows, we have only had since September 1. Armed with this as a treaty, I would quickly conclude that it is the will of the American people to work cooperatively, on all matters dealing with their security and their border, with the two nations with which they have so much in common, particularly Canada.
We are seeing in rapid succession a number of initiatives which seem to be domestic in nature. I know his colleague, the member for Windsor West, took exception to my comments about the domestic purpose or intent. However, it seems very clear that, given the size and the stature of the American economy and its influence which we are dealing with in other areas, as has been a question of generations of this Parliament in the past, we are now dealing with the necessity of understanding legislation as it is passed and its potential implications and indeed its potential contradictions. How would the hon. member rectify and get around this law, not just for the sake of government but for the sake of finding unanimity?
We can tell the Americans that this is the wrong thing to do. However, with so many other things, it is being done for what they perceive to be their own interest and it is a pretty hard argument to make.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, making reference to whether or not other members in the House are here is totally unacceptable. The member is suggesting that the government somehow does not have representation here when the hon. member knows full well it is extremely proportional to what the composition of the House is. We do not make reference to other members of Parliament and certainly not their attendance here this evening at such an important debate, which the government takes seriously.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, you can hear exactly what the Conservatives are saying right now because clearly they believe in heckling and talking over the issues as opposed to debating them. That is the Conservative way as opposed to dealing with these things constructively. If they have a problem they should take it up with the President of the United States because the President has a problem with this, the Prime Minister has a problem with this and Parliament has a problem with this. The only people who treat this as sidebar are those in the Conservative Party.
I would like to encourage the hon. member, since he is in one of the most important border communities where the flow from my riding tends to go through his area at the Ambassador Bridge, that if there are other concerns he may want to raise them now.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I did not heckle that member but let it be known that the hon. House leader believes it is more important to heckle and to banter, as opposed to dealing with some facts and figures. Let me give him one.
When the President of the United States first read about the WHTI in the newspaper and about the need to have passports, he wanted to know what was going on. He thought there was a better way to expedite the legal flow of traffic of people and that if people had to have a passport it would disrupt the honest flow of traffic. He thought there was some flexibility in the law and that is what they were checking out.
The hon. member just talked about Hillary Clinton and Governor Pataki who said the same thing.
If the President of the United States and leading congressmen have a problem with this then one would assume the Canadian government took this to be a question of domestic policy with obvious ramifications for Canada. That clearly may not be the case and so the government will be acting on this on the 31st and in terms of our own response with respect to Condoleezza Rice and the meeting we are having today.
I can quote every one of those hon. members. Let me give the House the comments by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest since he wants to heckle. He said that the consensus that emerged from the annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group was that they never realized the impact it would have.
Individuals in the Conservative Party seem more interested in making a point about whether a question of leadership is present, which it clearly is, as opposed to dealing with the more important fundamental issue of protecting Canadian jobs.
Members of the Conservative Party need to make a decision. Are they here to protect the border? Are they here to make sure Canadian interests are defended or are they going to continue with their partisan nonsense and of course deny us an opportunity to have consensus of the House of Commons?
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I agree with the hon. member. I do not think a single member in the House would disagree with the hon. member. I heard the hon. House leader for the Conservative Party again torquing this as if it were a partisan issue and saying that somehow the government has been derelict.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, who has spoken in a voice and on a tone which, tomorrow, will hopefully represent the consensus of this House and our Parliament. I would also like to congratulate him for taking the non-partisan actions which he has described well. Through these examples, he has shown that many U.S. representatives are still opposed.
I think that, in this House, there is something we are finding rather difficult, and that is the fact that the Americans, and the people at Homeland Security in particular, could perceive this initiative as a matter of domestic policy. How can one possibly look at this issue and think that it concerns domestic affairs? That is the real problem, despite what the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla said, who made partisan comments unfortunately. This is not the first time that this member fails to recognize that the river does not run south, as he once explained during an election campaign.
I have a question for the hon. member. Besides the consultations that it is undertaking, how else could the government further facilitate the capacity to put our point across and really press the Americans to make the right decision and reconsider their positions?
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I want to assure the hon. member, who too has been very open and outspoken on this issue, as I referred to a little earlier in my presentation, and we know where he comes from in terms of employment opportunities and of course the trade between the two areas.
The hon. member knows that the minister responsible for public safety and emergency preparedness, the Deputy Prime Minister, has been in touch on this issue, as it relates to this particular initiative, with Michael Chertoff, as early as back in March. Long before this evening happened, the government was aware of this. My colleague will be able to expatiate at greater length on this.
As it relates to working with organizations and groups and the American public, I think we are coming to a point where the two countries are going to have to recognize that, despite the disputes that exist between us and despite the difficulties in seeing the world through very different kaleidoscopes, the greatest partner and the greatest friend that nation can have is one that is immediately north of its border.
We will be there for the Americans, but rather than punishing them by asking them for passports, I think it is important for us to try to remind them that they are the first ones who are going to be affected by this.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, those are excellent questions, but ultimately that decision rests with the U.S. people, the people in that country who know full well that their greatest trading partner is not somewhere else in the world but in fact between the two borders.
There has been a lot of discussion about security trumping economics, but we see them as being just as important. Of course, there has been from this side not only the initiative by the House leader today to have this debate at a very important time when the American Secretary of State is here, but there is no doubt in my mind we are going to hear shortly from my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
In terms of understanding the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress and the structure of power in the United States today, it is important that we work at all levels to ensure the understanding that this is not an initiative that is going to hurt just us, but ultimately an initiative that is going to hurt the United States. And what is bad for people in the United States, bad for trade, bad for economics, bad for our historical relationship between the two countries, for which there is no precedent in the world, I think is an easy sell for people who want to listen. The American people and their representatives will listen to that, once, of course, a decision is made and the comment period is over at the end of this month, which is just a week away.
U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative October 24th, 2005
Mr. Chair, it is a very clear issue of concern to all Canadians, and the hon. member, who not only represents a border community but is also the esteemed whip of his party, speaks for all of us.
There is no doubt that this issue has come fast and furious, as the hon. member has quite rightly pointed out. I am glad to see that he has taken the opportunity to mention this in his own paper on the weekend. As the member for Niagara Falls has said before, Canada is not the problem. Referring to the Americans, he said that they have a problem along their southern border, not here, so they are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
Perhaps that comment is instructional, because what the hon. member has said is in fact the position of the Canadian government and that has been to recognize that we thought, as the hon. member has concluded, this initiative may have had something to do with other parts of the U.S. border. We have seen in recent times where there is concern existing now on the border, not just because of security but also as a result of restrictions and the ability to get over there.
Other restrictions that are creating problems for us, of course, are not limited to problems such as the flow and the difference in exchange that we have between the two nations, but specifically to this very initiative. It is an initiative which threatens the viability not just of Canada but of the 38 states in the U.S. right now whose number one trading partner is indeed Canada.
The message is clear. This weekend, for instance, I can tell the hon. member, our ambassador referred to this as a sleeper issue. He is making every effort he can to create sensibility and sensitivity to the issue, but we have to do it unanimously and we have to do it with one voice.