Greg Thompson

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I cannot relate this to jobs, but we could do the math. Two billion dollars would be the cost to the tourism industry the first year of implementation. If we do the math, it is simply thousands of jobs lost if this initiative continues on the path that we think it is going, unless the Government of Canada can stand up and help us change the minds of the Americans.

We have all mentioned the convention business and so on, but one of the things I want to mention is that this country of ours is pretty complicated. It is a big country and the border situations that will be faced by individual provinces and individual members of Parliament are pretty unique. We all have our own personal examples.

One example I want to use of how it will have an impact on the people that we represent is the area of Campobello Island. Campobello Island is in the Bay of Fundy and can only be accessed by travelling through mainland United States.

I think I am correct in claiming that I am the only member of Parliament who has to travel through a foreign land to get to part of his riding, which is Campobello Island. It is about an hour and a half by road to get to Campobello Island. It is connected by bridge to mainland United States. We could get there by boat but it is mostly impracticable for most of the year. We have done it, but most of the time we rely, as every citizen would, on going into mainland United States. It would mean that every citizen on that island would require a passport to go for basic necessities like gasoline. There are no gasoline stations on that island. There is no hospital on that island. For most of the drugs and medical services the people have to go to the mainland.

The situation could arise where in the middle of night a 95-year-old woman who is deathly sick in the nursing home on Campobello Island had to go to the hospital in Machias, Maine. How would she get across the border without a passport if this is implemented? How many 95-year-old citizens have passports?

Another example would be school teens. Campobello Island takes great pride in its basketball teams. Great basketball players have gone through the system on Campobello Island. If a basketball team is travelling to some other school in Canada, every one of those students, all the players and the coaches, including the bus driver, would need a passport to get off of the island to go through mainland United States to get to some other part of Canada and back home.

This has not been thought through. That is why the Prime Minister of Canada has to stand up and be heard on this issue, and heard very strongly.

Here is another example. If American citizens left the United States and got into Canada without a passport, how would they get back home? They would be refugees in Canada, Americans unable to get back into their home states. This is something that American senators and congressmen actually talk about. Think about it. One of the most prominent senators in the United States, Hillary Clinton, the wife of a former president and who I think wants to be president herself, admits that this kind of slipped by them. In fact, most of the senators and congressmen who actually voted for this legislation now openly admit that they made a huge mistake.

I think it is up to us to point out to the Americans that this has to be fixed. Canada is important to the Americans. It is time that the Prime Minister understood that. It is time that he went down to Washington immediately and talked with those parliamentarians, with those senators and congressmen in the United States. I used the term “parliamentarians”, but obviously it is a congressional system, a presidential government.

However, the truth is that the Prime Minister has to take this seriously. We have seven more days before the comment period actually expires. We had better make our case as strongly and forcibly as we can to the United States of America and be strong enough to stand up and say that this will not work, and to please reconsider it. We should provide some suggestions to see if we can do it together and make our economies work.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we could go through a roster of ministers but the Prime Minister is the guy in charge and not one of them has ever been on his or her feet in the House to inform Parliament. This debate should have taken place a year ago.

Is that not the problem with the Liberal government? For the last 12 years going on 13 the Liberals never know when to say yes or no to the Americans. This is one time the Prime Minister should have said, “This is wrong. It is going to hurt your economy and it is going to hurt ours”, and be heard on it. He was in New York two weeks ago. The New York power brokers were listening. In fact, he met with the editorial board of The New York Times and did not even mention this issue.

That goes back to the infamous meeting between the Prime Minister and the President that did not happen. There is no evidence out there that they ever met on this issue. I would ask the government member who stated that to retract it and to apologize to the House and the Canadian people. The government has fallen asleep on this file. It is going to wreak havoc on the Canadian economy. We are asking it to do something and to do it fast.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is time for the government side to regain its composure.

The fact is that this initiative is very hurtful to Canada. Three weeks ago when the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary meetings took place in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, every Republican and every Democrat from the United States of America at that meeting told us that the legislation was ill considered and not well thought out. Believe it or not, every Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc member agreed that this is not good legislation, that it will be hurtful to both economies.

We have heard the numbers. There are 300,000 individual crossings a day between the two countries, 300,000 a day. The one industry we focused on was the tourism industry. We can say with accuracy that it is going to cost the tourism industry $2 billion and counting the first year.

What they are talking about in terms of requirements means that 250 million Americans will have to have a passport or some other document within the next year and a half. Thirty million Canadians will require the same document, as will 100 million Mexicans. How the Prime Minister could have missed this one is beyond my belief.

Every day in the House, Mr. Chair, and you have gone through this time and time again in your position in the chair, we have routine proceedings. During routine proceedings when statements by ministers are called, Mr. Chair, do you recall the Prime Minister of Canada actually standing to inform Parliament on this issue? Has any other minister?

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, there are no points of order here, as we well know. We are on the—

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, we are actually debating the United States Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Let me say for the folks back home that this is the passport initiative. “Passport” is the operative word on this.

I want to remind the listening public and the members of this House that for those travelling by air the necessity or requirement for a passport or some other document which has not yet been invented will kick in and the document will be needed as of December 31, 2006. For those travelling by land, it will be required by December 31, 2007.

In a sense, the debate really is not about a bill or an initiative that the Government of Canada is taking, because this clearly is a bill or an initiative taken by the government of the United States. There is no question about that. The issue is that there will be serious implications for Canada.

The Government of Canada has had plenty of notice concerning this travel initiative, as the parliamentary secretary noted. It sounds quite innocent, does it not, this “travel initiative”? It sounds as if the U.S. is encouraging travel when it talks about a travel initiative. However, this initiative will restrict travel. This initiative was passed by the government of the United States in December 2004. I know I am accurate on that number because the government has also mentioned that date.

The Canadian government has had time to do something. Our argument is that the Government of Canada has done nothing.

It is important for us to focus on the time element, because with any legislation in the United States there is a 60 day comment period during which private citizens or industry can comment on a bill or an initiative undertaken by government. It is what the U.S. government calls the implementation period.

We are arguing that the comment period on this particular bill ends on October 31. It is now October 24. There is one week to go and the Prime Minister has not been heard publicly on this issue at all. The government has known for well over a year that this was coming. There have been plenty of signals out there, but the government has done absolutely nothing.

One thing mentioned by the member from Thunder Bay was a meeting. I am quoting the member from Thunder Bay, who said that the Prime Minister had personal intervention with the President of the United States on this issue. We heard him say that. I would like to know where that was and when it was, because I believe the member is wrong on that. If the member is correct or if he does know that date and where it happened, he would be the only one in this House, because his ministers do not know and his parliamentary secretaries do not know.

I would suggest that this imaginary meeting that was held was something like the meeting that our former prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, had with the homeless guy down the street. It was simply a figment of his imagination. This never occurred. I am suggesting that this is exactly what the member from Thunder Bay is referring to: an event that never happened. That is exactly what this argument and debate is all about: inaction by the Government of Canada on an issue that is going to have huge consequences for the Canadian economy.

Not only those of us in opposition are speaking this way. Industry is speaking that way, from Windsor to British Columbia, all across this country and in all parts of this country. All premiers are speaking that way. The member from Windsor quoted some of the premiers. Every premier in Canada is saying, “This is going to have grave consequences. Please stand up, Prime Minister, and do something now while we have an opportunity”.

A week ago I stood in this place and asked for an emergency debate on this issue. For some reason, the Chair declined that word “emergency” in regard to the debate. That was declined. Thank goodness our House leader was strong enough to drive this hard enough at the House leaders' meeting so that we do have a take note debate.

There are some limitations on that. Just think about it. The Liberals have had a year to deal with this. Now we are down to the last seven days and there is a pathetic turnout on the government side. I am not identifying individual members of Parliament but I am saying that I do not think the turnout on the government side is very impressive.

[U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, one of the questions I have for the member for Windsor West, who has done a terrific job on the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group by the way, is with regard to the lack of interest by the Government of Canada.

For example, Mr. Chair, if you go through the Standing Orders, which I am sure you are pretty familiar with, and routine proceedings every day in this House, we have what we call statements by ministers. I want the member to comment on this because not once has any minister or the Prime Minister stood in the House to give Parliament, the place where these issues should be debated, an update on this issue. This one has just simply gone by them. Now that we are seven days from the comment period ending, they are attempting to make up time.

Would the member please comment on that in terms of the Prime Minister and his government dropping the ball on this issue being a gift?

[Petitions, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I have presented in the House on the same issue. The citizens of New Brunswick are saying no to the transport of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to protect our environment, our economy and our citizens, and say no to the passage of that very dangerous cargo through Head Harbour Passage.

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the government on this issue.

The Government of Canada did studies 30 years ago and it said no to the transport of oil tankers through that very passage. History and the environment have not changed that much in 30 years. It is still the same passage. It is still the most dangerous passage in all of eastern Canada. I cannot believe for a minute that the government would dismiss the risks to our citizens and our environment in transporting a very dangerous cargo through those very dangerous waters in ships the size of which have never gone through that body of water. I cannot believe what I am hearing from the Government of Canada.

On top of that, at the end of the day the government never knows when to say yes or no to the Americans. This is just another example of where it is offside.

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Transport on the proposal to build an LNG terminal on the American side of Passamoquoddy Bay. I want to remind the House what that question was. I said:

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of proposals for the construction of an LNG terminal on the U.S. side of Passamoquoddy Bay. All of these proposals would require LNG tankers to pass through internal Canadian waters. Head Harbour Passage is the most dangerous waterway to navigate on the entire east coast.

I suggested that allowing passage of those tankers would expose our citizens, our environment and our economy to a high level of risk and asked the government, in this case the Minister of Transport, whether the government was prepared to say no to the transport of those LNG tankers through internal Canadian waters.

The minister stood on his feet in this House and completely reversed the position that the Liberals had taken a year or so ago. I should not say reversed. Let me clarify. He changed the position they had a year ago when this question was first raised. A year ago the government said that it would only take a position on the transport of those LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage when there was a formal application to build an LNG terminal on the American side of Passamoquoddy Bay.

Now there is more than one formal application to proceed with the construction of those terminals. Now the government has changed its position. The minister is now saying that we will only make a decision on the transport of those LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage when the proponents of the project request passage of their ships through internal Canadian waters. This is simply not acceptable. I believe the Government of Canada is obligated now to state its position. The government has to err on the side of our citizens, our environment and our economy, which all would be at risk if this terminal were to proceed on the American side of Passamoquoddy Bay.

The Americans themselves recognize that Canada at the end of the day will have a legitimate right to say no to the transport of those tankers through our waters, internal Canadian waters. In fact, the director of FERC, the federal agency in the United States which actually regulates the building of these terminals, has suggested the same thing.

During a meeting that he held in Robbinston, Maine, U.S.A. a couple of weeks ago, the director, Richard Hoffman stated, “If Canada decides to stop it”-- that is the proposal to build an LNG terminal in the United States of America--“it is my personal opinion that they can stop it”. They can stop it. He recognizes that this is a sovereignty issue where Canada has every right to say no to the transport of that dangerous cargo through our waters, Canadian waters.

I am not satisfied with the government's response. I look forward to the parliamentary secretary's response.

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I hand delivered to you last evening a request for an emergency debate. In accordance with the requirement of the Standing Orders, I will simply step through what that letter stated. I think that will probably abbreviate the issue, so to speak, and hopefully you can quickly make a ruling on this.

The letter that I delivered to you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:

In accordance with the requirement of the Standing Orders, I hereby give notice that I will, at the next sitting of the House, make application for an emergency debate on actions taken by the United States of America that will have long lasting and negative consequences for the Canadian economy. With the potential to create more destruction in our trading relationship than the Softwood Lumber issue or BSE.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the Western Hemispheric Travel Initiative (WHTI) often referred to as the passport initiative. This initiative will require the use of passports by all U.S. Citizens leaving and returning to their country, this Mr. Speaker would also require Canadians to have the same form of identification ie passports [for travel to the United States]. Thus far Mr. Speaker, Canada has been somewhat silent on this issue, despite the fact that the economic consequences for our country will be great. As evidenced by the statistical information the various sectors of our economy have stated. (Statistical information on this issue would overburden you...but it is information that has been gathered by the Auto and Trucking Industries, Universities, Banks and Corporate Businesses, Border Commissions and Councils [including, obviously, the tourism council] and Provincial Governments.)

This debate I believe...is critically important because under the American Congressional Rules [and it is important for us to understand this] “there is a period of comment” where Canadians are allowed to comment on the impending legislation. In other words Mr. Speaker, it is an opportunity for Canadians to register their thoughts and in fact, have an impact in the implementation of these new rules. Mr. Speaker this debate would allow all Parliamentarians to register their concerns on this very controversial piece of Legislation. The comment period ends on October 31, 2005 and I therefore submit that the timing is critically important [on this issue]...

The former Premier McKenna, now our Canadian ambassador to the U.S., stated, “this is the sleeper issue that will dramatically affect Canadian business and trade”.

If there is any other clarification required I am prepared to provide it but I believe it is an issue that will affect the Canadian economy in a way that would be catastrophic. I suppose it depends on one's definition of the word “catastrophic” but one example is that the tourism people, associations and councils across Canada suggest that the first year of implementation would cost their businesses $2 billion. In fact, they are suggesting that it has a negative impact today because a lot of Americans chose not to visit Canada this year simply because they believed the legislation was in place and that passports were required to visit Canada. Therefore, it has already had a negative impact.

This year, as we know, a couple of weeks ago in fact, we hosted the Americans on the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. We had our annual meeting in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Every American legislator, senators and congressmen, believes this was poorly thought out legislation and never realized the impact it would have.

I am suggesting we have an opportunity to debate it and add comment and, hopefully, we will have an impact on changing that which would work to the benefit of all.