Mr. Speaker, given that this is my first opportunity to do so, I would like to begin, on behalf of the official opposition, by congratulating the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the leadership of Premier Mike Harris for the stunning re-election last night against overwhelming odds.
We are thrilled to see that a tax cutting, fiscally responsible government has been re-elected in Ontario. It will certainly help to increase transit and free trade. That is why this bill will be much more used under a Mike Harris government in Ontario. There will be more economic growth in this province, which will mean more trade with our partners to the south and elsewhere.
People who are watching today on electronic Hansard will see that the code of this bill is S-22. Sometimes they will see bills that are C-34 or C-56 and so on. These different codes indicate where the bill has been introduced. When the bill is preceded by a C , it means that it has come in through the House of Commons, which is the conventional means of introducing a bill into parliament. When the bill is preceded by an S , it means that it has been introduced in the other place, the so-called upper Chamber. That would be the unaccountable, unelected, patronage haven a few metres down the hall from here. This just so happens to be such a bill, Bill S-22, Senate Bill 22.
We are joined by the esteemed and newly academically accredited government House leader, to whom we extend our commendation. I would like to point out that while he may have extraordinary academic credentials, he does not seem very capable of managing the legislative agenda of the government through the normal democratic conventions of parliament by introducing legislation first in the House of Commons. Instead, he has taken to the objectionable practice of introducing bills such as this in the other place. Why? Presumably because he thinks it is easier and because they have so little work to do over there. They are so unburdened by the business of the people that bills can be introduced there to expedite their passage through parliament.
We want to make it clear that the official opposition objects to government bills being brought before us in the elected and accountable Chamber which have first been introduced in the unelected and unaccountable Chamber. It may just seem to be a technical complaint by members of my party, but for us it represents a legitimization of an illegitimate upper Chamber which ought not to be exercising powers in a modern democratic society.
We look very closely at every bill that comes before us which is first introduced in the Senate. Our position is to oppose those bills simply as a symbol of our opposition to using the Senate as a place for the introduction of legislation. We have not done that in this case. While I have registered my serious objections to Senate legislation, we find that this bill is good in its intention and that it is a well drafted bill which seeks to expedite the intra-transit flow of passengers and goods between foreign jurisdictions and Canada en route, for instance, to our major trading partner, the United States.
In principle, the Reform Party of Canada endorses, embraces and supports free trade. We support reducing red tape. We support any measures that would make it more convenient for travellers, business people and trade in goods and services to pass into Canada and through Canada. That is the objective of the bill, and for that reason we can support it.
Never let it be said that simply because we are in the official opposition position we always oppose legislation unthinkingly and in a knee-jerk fashion. That simply is not true. Members of the government would sometimes have people believe that the opposition opposes for the sake of opposing. That is not so. As I understand it, the official opposition has supported roughly half of the government bills introduced in this session of parliament. Those have mainly been technical bills that have achieved incremental advantages and which we have not objected to in principle. This is such a bill.
I wanted to make that point very clear because we try to be a constructive opposition. Where we see flaws in legislation, we speak up and object to it and do so sometimes very vociferously. When we see bills that are supportable, that incorporate common sense and are reasonably well drafted, we are prepared to support them at all stages. We do exercise discretion in the way we analyze legislation and in what we choose to support and oppose. Never let it be said that this official opposition is simply an obstructionist opposition.
Yes, when it comes to the tax increase, soft on crime, top-down, Ottawa knows best agenda of the government, we do oppose it vigorously, as we do with various bills before parliament today, but not Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health.
Essentially, as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated, the bill deals with Canada allowing the United States to operate preclearance centres in Canada. That already is the practice for Canadian travellers travelling directly to destinations in the United States. A case in point would be someone travelling through Lester Pearson airport in Toronto, which is the airport that had its privatization contract screwed up by this government and which cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.
However, if we were travelling through that Liberal white elephant en route to the United States, we would present ourselves at a U.S. customs desk and would have to pass through U.S. immigration. If we were travelling to the United States so that we could pay less taxes, we would end up not having to stop to clear customs in the United States. This is advantageous to our trading partners, the Americans, because it allows them to screen potentially problematic travellers, commercial or personal travellers, before they get onto American soil. It is to their advantage in terms of interdicting contraband and interdicting illegal immigrants and illegal aliens.
It is also good for Canadians because it expedites our passage. It is very quick. We get checked in at the airline counter and within a few minutes we pass through American customs and immigration and are essentially in a legal no man's land until we arrive in the United States. However, we are able to walk off the plane there and away we go.
For tens of thousands of air travellers, this preclearance, which happens at most of our international airports, is certainly a convenient expedition of travel. It saves time and therefore saves money.
The bill would essentially expand that. It would allow in-transit preclearance services. Suppose we were to arrive from Asia at the Vancouver International Airport on Canadian Airlines, our preferred airline, we would find, if the bill is passed and the elements of it are adopted and implemented, that we could pass through this kind of preclearance allowing Canadian transportation hubs like Vancouver to increase. It would also assist Canadian air carriers. This is of particular importance to Vancouver, which is becoming a major hub for international travel. We want to do everything we can to expedite that.
If the traveller's final destination is Europe or South America on a non-stop flight from Vancouver, the passenger can wait in the transit lounge until his next flight and not go through customs and immigration until his final destination. That is the kind of thing this would allow.
I just want to make clear once again that we are distressed to see this bill coming from the other place. We really do object to this gratuitous legitimization of an illegitimate, unelected Chamber by this constant introduction of government legislation. It was a very irregular practice until this House leader and this government began to regularize it.
We are of course going to continue our fight to legitimize that upper chamber. Next week, we will be participating in a rally outside the other place, co-sponsored, believe it or not, by members of the NDP and the Liberal Party. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will be co-sponsoring the event with Reformers and concerned Canadians who are distressed with the lack of democracy in parliament and in the other place in particular. We will be there and one of the things we will be objecting to is this House leader's and this government's legitimization of that upper chamber by introducing bills there.
In closing, I want to say that we will support Bill S-22 here at its final stage and hope for its expeditious passage into law so that we can increase, and make more convenient, travel for Canadians and other passengers through this country.
