Jim Abbott

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32. The purpose of the bill is to enact the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act and other acts as a consequence of the establishment of the Department of International Trade. DFAIT is splitting into two departments. There has been thorough debate on Bill C-31 dealing with the issue of international trade. I wish to take this opportunity to speak about the Department of Foreign Affairs.

In this Parliament I have had the rare privilege to be the associate critic of foreign affairs Asia Pacific, as appointed by the leader of the Conservative Party. In that period of time I have taken the opportunity to learn a little more about Asia Pacific. It strikes me that there are many ways Canada could be doing a far better and more creative job with respect to foreign affairs than it is presently doing. This comes about as a result of three particular incidents that I would like to report to the House.

First I should say that we as Canadians still have the aura, we still have the leftovers, as it were, of Lester B. Pearson. Those leftovers are really wonderful because he and the people of that era gave Canada a particular reputation. It is unfortunate that we are only able to trade off of that reputation today as opposed to being able to expand our influence in Asia Pacific and in other parts of the world.

I have experienced some frustrations. When I and other Canadians who carry the title of member of Parliament, Speaker of the House, or senator go into an international forum, we do so with an unbelievable amount of goodwill preceding us as we go through the door. As I said, we are trading off of Lester B. Pearson and the wonderful work that Canadians of that era did, particularly as peacekeepers.

Unfortunately the situation now with the Department of Foreign Affairs is the Liberals, who have been in power since 1993, are timid in the area of foreign affairs. There is goodwill as we enter the door but then the people with whom we are going to be conversing say, “Okay, now what are you up to? What is Canada up to at this particular point?”

We have done away with our great nation's tremendous history of involvement as a leader in the world community. We have done away with our ability to trade off of our strengths. We are followers rather than leaders. Let me give some examples.

I would like to draw to members' attention the situation as it respects the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China with Taiwan. We have ended up in a position of timidity in the face of rather bellicose belligerence on the part of the PRC. We have permitted the People's Republic of China to bully foreign affairs into taking very timid action.

I will give a chronology of six recently denied visits of Taiwanese high-ranking officials to Canada.

In July 2001 Canada rejected the visit of Dr. Ming-liang Lee, minister of health of Taiwan. The reason given was that it was not convenient.

In August 2002 Canada rejected the Taiwanese prime minister's stopover visit. He was on his way to Central America. This was just a stopover on a normal trade route of our airlines.

In September 2002 Canada denied a visa to Taiwan's foreign minister, Eugene Chien, for his private visit to Canada because it was inconvenient.

We note that at the same time Canada welcomed General Chi Haotien, China's defence minister, who was the operational commander at the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Chi also met with then prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Taiwan's foreign minister came for a private visit to Canada. He was not permitted to be here because it was inconvenient, yet the PRC defence minister was.

In June 2003 Canada denied a visa again to Taiwan's foreign minister, Eugene Chien for his private visit to Vancouver.

In August 2004 Canada denied a transit stop in Canada to democratically elected Chen Shui-bian on his way to Panama.

In September 2004 Canada denied a visit to Taiwan's foreign minister, Tan Sun Chen, for his private visit which did not include meetings with any Canadian officials.

This is a timidity that is unbecoming of a sovereign nation. This is a timidity in the face of belligerence on the part of the PRC. We are not talking about the recognition of Taiwan as a nation. We are simply talking about the fact that there are elected officials who from time to time want to make private visits to Canada, or who are simply in transit, who should be permitted to land in Canada.

It shows a timidity unbecoming of a sovereign nation. I introduced a motion in the House which was supported by all members of the House, including many people who at present are on the front bench of the Liberal Party of Canada. They voted in favour of a motion to recognize Taiwan as a health entity at the World Health Organization. Those same people who were backbenchers and who are now on the front bench, without a doubt under the direction of the foreign affairs department would vote against the same motion in the House. It is a timidity unbecoming of a sovereign nation.

I am also very familiar on a first-hand basis with some of the goings on in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a misnomer if I ever heard one. The people of North Korea are in a very precarious situation. They are under the most severe repression in the world. There is no nation in the world that has a tighter rein on its people than the regime in North Korea.

When Lloyd Axworthy as our foreign affairs minister decided that he was going to recognize the DPRK, we had an opportunity at that particular point to show some real strength instead of timidity and to carve out a course of action that would have been independent. As I recall it, the recognition by the former foreign affairs minister happened fully two years prior to the North Koreans' announcing that they had nuclear weapons. The question is very much in the news today, but it is still a question, do they or do they not have nuclear arms?

We had the ability at that point to become players in that particular game. We are on the cusp of a potentially serious world situation. Canada could have been, would have been and should have been right at the centre of that simply by showing some strength of character and engaging the people of North Korea. They do not see us as being a threat to them in the same way that they would see the United States as being a threat. They see Canada as having the ability to influence the U.S. and to have contact through Canada to people in the western hemisphere and yet we have been timid.

NGO after NGO have gone into North Korea and are there in a very strong relational way with the decision makers in North Korea. They have far more influence than our great nation of Canada, all because of the timidity of our foreign affairs policy.

Last month I had the privilege of working in concert with the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont on an issue of political prisoners and on an issue of human rights in the nation of Vietnam.Through the interventions of the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Senator Mac Harb and myself, we had an opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue with the regime of Vietnam. The regime of Vietnam was going to be releasing under a political amnesty 8,000 prisoners.

We had an opportunity to speak with the officials of Vietnam who were trying to become a part of the world community. We had a very constructive discussion with them. As a consequence of that, we were directly involved in the release of certain prisoners.

How many people in Foreign Affairs Canada, who are involved on a day to day basis, have that opportunity? I suggest not many because there is a timidity on the part of Foreign Affairs Canada.

Whether we are talking about Taiwan, North Korea, Vietnam or about the relationship between Canada and South Korea and, in turn, its relationship with the six party talks and their relationship in turn with the North Koreans, we have a place in the world community that we are presently not exerting.

I would hope, in taking a look at Bill C-32 and in taking a look at the reorganization, that at the same time we would see our current Minister of Foreign Affairs begin to exert a more imaginative and outward-looking posture in the world, that we would begin to see our defence minister doing the things he needs to do so we can be taken more seriously as a nation of nations, and that we would regain our strength and our position in the world community.

Although Bill C-32 is fundamentally a housekeeping bill, it gives us the opportunity to take another look at how we as a nation relate to other nations in the world.

I would say that what we need as Canadians is more of a backbone and less of a wishbone.

[2010 Olympic Games, February 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Own the Podium program created by the Vancouver 2010 and the Canadian Olympic Committee is an ambitious plan aimed at achieving a record 35 medals for Canada and to make the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games the most successful ever for Canadian athletes.

This week, IOC President Jacques Rogge said it is important that a host country put strong plans in place to ensure their athletes will attain podium success.

While he noted Canada's winter sport community is already working collaboratively toward this goal for 2010, I note that we have yet to receive any indication other than lip service from the Canadian government that it will join with the winter sport community to ensure that we own the podium.

Every past host nation in recent memory has actively promoted the success of their athletes at their winter games. Canada should be no exception. The government must pay attention now, today, and finally support the nation-wide consensus building around Own the Podium 2010.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is good debate because in fact western economic diversification is exactly that: economic diversification. I am afraid that my friend did not understand what one of my experts was saying. I will quote him:

Conversion of the landscape to one less prone to epidemic outbreaks provides the only real solution to the type of Mountain Pine Beetle problems currently seen in B.C.

He is talking about the responsibility that governments have, including the federal government, to pony up some dollars to help in the process of reforestation, and rather than just going with pine and pine and pine in the forest to come up with a diversity of pine, a diversity of stand, and to manage the forest in a way such that the forest would not be susceptible, as it has been, to this epidemic with one particular species.

With respect to the question of climate change, I can understand that he is trying to make a point about Kyoto. I think we could have a debate about energy and energy alternatives that might be well taken in the House, but let us talk about that for half a second.

Instead of shipping a couple of hundred million dollars over to Russia in this false attempt with carbon credits, why not take that money and put it into wind research? Why not take that money and put it into solar research? Why not take that money and put it into tax credits and programs which would actually develop alternatives that can make a difference in terms of carbon generation?

We are going to be requiring more and more energy. I take a look, for example, at the great nation of China, with 1.3 billion people and the rapacious appetite they have for energy. The amount of energy that it will require for its developing economy is absolutely gigantic. We cannot even imagine the amount of energy that it is going to require.

With the kind of technology we have in Canada, through either a tax credit program or some kind of encouragement, instead of shipping the money for these crazy carbon tax credits, why do we not use that money to help Canadian industry develop an alternative for countries like China or India so that they will no longer be dependent on burning fossil fuels and creating the CO

2

? That is the innovative way that the Conservative Party is looking at it, not the old, tired out policies of shipping billions of dollars for paper tax credits.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with all those questions.

First, I would point out that in the comments by one of my experts he said, “In 2001 a B.C. industry task force called for $600 million“--which seems to me to be a tad more than $40 million but I am not sure--“in federal assistance over 10 years and in 2002 joined with the province to request an additional $125 million over five years”.

My math is not all that great, but I come up with a total of $725 million that was recommended by experts and requested by the province. The response by the federal government was $40 million. It seems to me that there is something of a shortfall.

My friend keeps on going back to the question and we have answered the question with respect to Kyoto and the whole issue of climate change.

While I recognize it is his turn to ask me question, I would ask him, if all that is happening under Kyoto, in addition to some of the glossy advertising that the federal government is attempting to put together and trying to influence people in that particular way and having very little effect, what is gained by taking carbon credits from Russia on old information, on information that existed when it was the U.S.S.R. instead of Russia? Their economy fundamentally collapsed. As a consequence, they have so-called carbon credits left over to sell.

What are we going to do? I guess Canada will transfer hundreds of millions of dollars, nay billions of dollars, to Russia in order to get away with continuing to put out carbon. carbon, I should mention in the case of Russia, that will now increase as a result of the turn back in the economy. The economy in Russia is now starting to come back up again and this is all stale dated.

All that is basically going on is buying and selling of carbon credits and a little bit of advertising. If that is going to solve the pine beetle problem in the mind of the member for Yukon, then I think he has been looking at too many northern lights.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that rather than getting into a debate only with our words, I would put some words from registered professional foresters on the record with respect to the federal government. I have some comments from Peter Gribbon of Downie Street Sawmills and from Troy Hromadnik, the chief forester at Tembec. Both are very responsible forestry companies, as are all of the forestry companies in my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia, that I am proud to represent.

Mr. Gribbon in part says:

The cause of landscape level outbreaks is tree and stand susceptibility. The best long-term strategy is to focus on managing pine instead of the beetle. That could be extended to say: the best strategy is to focus on managing lodgepole pine ecosystems and the processes that regulate them. Conversion of the landscape to one less prone to epidemic outbreaks provides the only real solution to the type of Mountain Pine Beetle problems currently seen in B.C.

Existing forest management knowledge needs to be translated into “beetle proofing” future stands through practices like:

management of tree densities which should be reduced;

a mix of tree species and ages in a forest helps to prevent populations from building up;

shortening rotations time also helps keep the forest younger, healthier and more resistant to attack;

permanent road systems throughout the working forest reduces the response time and can help keep outbreaks small;

maintain vigour in pine stands.

He goes on to say:

The Federal Forest Rehabilitation program, led by Natural Resources Canada will deliver a beetle control response on federal forest lands that have the greatest concentration of beetle-infested forest.

The federal government could also make additional significant contributions in the following areas:

economic and strategic analysis;

economic diversification support;

environmental impact mitigation work;

fisheries and water protection work;

rehabilitation of non-economic sites;

support for University and College research chairs;

undertake research into effective forest and ecosystem management;

investigate influence of climate change;

help support rural

community economies and assist in developing other economic engines.

Mr. Hromadnik of Tembec had a slightly different perspective in his presentation to me. He said:

At this point, management efforts at the provincial level are almost exclusively focused on controlling the spread of this pest. While this is and clearly should be the priority of land managers in the province of BC, only recently has there been a recognition that the federal government must begin to play a more active role.

As it relates to forest health, the role of the federal government continues to be elevated as the mountain pine beetle epidemic persists in the province of BC. In a recent forest manager 'think tank' session, the question was asked of senior industry members, “What is the role of and/or what are the expectations of the federal government in the matter of controlling the spread of mountain pine beetle in B.C.?” Several consistent themes evolved including...

reforestation/rehabilitation funding;

marketing;

education and awareness;

research and development;

community stability; and,

overall political support for the various initiatives.

In 2001, a BC industry task force called for $600 million in federal assistance over 10 years and in 2002 joined with the province to request an additional $125 million over five years. While the province did receive $40 million in federal funding, the amount is far short of that required to address the 'fall-out' from this disaster. Although industry maintains the legal requirement to reforest land where salvage harvesting has occurred, there are literally thousands of hectares where stands that are killed will not be salvaged. To ensure that these stands continue to contribute to the 'productive forest landbase' of the province, rehabilitation activities will be required. As one assesses the problem it becomes clear that substantial federal funding will be required to assist the province of BC in completing this task.

He goes on to say:

Although the beetle epidemic in BC is rightly seen as a disaster by most, it is not necessarily viewed this way by all. The federal government, to the benefit of the province and the BC industry, may choose to implement a mountain pine beetle education and awareness program. Through such efforts, the federal government will educate foreign markets, communities, NGO groups and students on the implications of this event.

He then goes on to talk about research and development as a key area of the federal government. He also points out:

Many communities in the province of BC will undoubtedly face significant, long-term impacts as a result of the beetle epidemic. The federal government, in cooperation with BC agencies, will be able to identify such communities and will be able to develop economic transition strategies where they are suited. The federal government can aid and encourage economic diversification of communities and/or individual businesses and can attract other economic ventures compatible with future re-establishment of the forest industry. With federal funding and efforts tied to the maintenance of community stability in affected regions of the province, the long-term economic impacts of this pest will be reduced and, in some areas, perhaps mitigated.

Federal support has been sought by the province in the past. In light of the disaster created by the mountain pine beetle, B.C. is again looking for the involvement of the federal government. The federal government has a key role to play in the control of this pest and/or in the mitigation of its impacts. The federal government, in collaboration with provincial partners, is capable of identifying and addressing those challenges that have arisen as a result of the beetle epidemic. The federal government maintains the knowledge, resources and infrastructure to follow through on the action plan it develops. It is for these reasons that the federal government must join its provincial partners and engage the mountain pine beetle issue head-on.

Those were two sets of comments by people in the province who are directly engaged with the potential of this problem.

In my constituency of Kootenay—Columbia we are just at the starting edge of this problem. I regret to see the devastation in the constituencies of my colleagues from Prince George and in other areas of the province. We are just starting into it. It is primarily on the west side of Kootenay Lake and it can clearly be seen. There are other patches throughout the east Kootenays. It will fully engage the pine in Kootenay National Park and Yoho National Park. It will then carry on through Banff and Jasper National Parks and end up in my colleague's constituency in Yellowhead and in the constituency of my other colleague from Wild Rose.

At that point, we will have engaged so much wood it will be hard to even comprehend. With all due respect to my friends from the NDP and all the people who are involved on the farther edge of the environmentalist action groups, I say that they should give their heads a shake. Two years ago in the summer, we had forest fires in Kelowna that were directly related to this infestation. In fact, what we have in many parts of the interior of British Columbia at this point is not forests. We have matchsticks complete with phosphorous on the top, figuratively speaking. Our whole province is about to burn up as a result of this infestation and the standing dead wood.

Some environmental groups have become very exercised about the fact that even with a low level satellite in terms of being able to take a look down on the province of British Columbia, that one can see the area of clear cut. Of course we can but that beats the heck out of having all of that fuel sitting there just waiting to turn into an absolute inferno.

Why am I describing it this way? I see my friend from Yukon. He has much of the same kind of topography. Although his trees grow at a much slower rate, he region has many of the same species and, to a lesser extent, the same kind of industry that I have in my constituency and in the province of British Columbia. He would know that when this happens we will see, over the next 5, 10, 15 years, changes in our province that even at this point are unimaginable to us. We have only seen a taste of it as a result of the fire at Kelowna. In fact, the forest fire in my constituency came within only 10 kilometres of the southern boundary of the city of Cranbrook.

If this disaster, and I say again, disaster, was in Ontario, if this disaster was where Liberals get elected, they would have been falling all over themselves to get the situation corrected or at least to come up with some form of mitigation. It is to that extent that this is a political debate. It is to that extent that when they see problems with the auto pact and the auto industry that they turn up with many tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. When they see the problem in the Canadian aerospace industry they turn up with loan guarantees and export plans. They turn up with all sorts of resources but somehow in the province of British Columbia, where this happens to be on the other side of the Canadian Rockies, they cannot see it. They do not understand it.

I really value the input that we have had from my colleague from Kamloops. It is true that in her presentation she was somewhat emotional but maybe we do have to get a little emotional in this chamber. She was a little emotional on behalf of her constituents. She said that the people in her constituency, the people in my colleague's constituency and the people in the Prince George--Peace River constituency are living with this at this point. They are seeing the starting edge of this disaster happening.

It is with that frustration that I, having the privilege of being B.C. caucus chair, am fully aware and engaged with this on behalf of the B.C. caucus because our B.C. caucus speaking for the people of B.C. are the only ones who are trying to put any kind of pressure on the federal Liberals.

We heard the chirping of the natural resources minister earlier tonight when we was saying, “You didn't give me a phone call”. I do not know what all was going on. Mr. Chair, obviously you were not there but I am sure with your expertise that all of that chirping would not have happened. However, the point was that it became a back and forth debate. The reality is that we are dealing with a disaster at this particular point.

I say to the federal Liberals that they should wake up and smell the forest fire because that is exactly what we are into at this particular point. We need action, not more words from the federal Liberals.

[Forestry, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that there is apparently an election coming up in British Columbia on May 17. Anybody who did not know would actually think we were in Victoria right now, with the NDP members going on about the B.C. Liberals cutting back their forest amounts and so on. This is the federal Parliament, I just thought I would let the member know, and we are talking about the responsibility of the federal government in this issue in British Columbia.

If he wants to get into provincial politics, perhaps we could remind him, as my colleague from Cariboo--Prince George did earlier in the debate, it was the B.C. NDP government that was at the crux, at the core, at the beginning, at the genesis of this disaster. Perhaps the member might think a little about his comments. If we are trying to hold the federal Liberals accountable, because truly they have an accountability in the aftermath of the start of the disaster by the B.C. NDP, we should be doing that in this chamber.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is more personnel. There must be more personnel in order to do the job. The second part of the answer is to have the proper equipment available that personnel. The third part of the answer is that we must have negotiation and cooperation between ourselves and the U.S.

Right now the federal Liberals are telling us that if there is a problem for a border guard who is working by himself, he can go across the border. The fact of the matter is that he cannot. There is no protocol. There is no agreement with the United States in the majority of the situations. It is only under the most extreme situation that there can be any actual physical cooperation. It would only be in an overwhelming situation that the U.S. border guards would actually be able to go back and forth.

I have one last point. In the case of Rooseville, there are 10 Canada Revenue Agency employees. Facing them immediately across the border, there are 29 on the American side. It just talks to the whole issue of resources.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, indeed the whole issue of stopping the reporting of critical incidents is a very serious issue within itself. The Liberals are just trying to put their heads in the sand.

I could give an example from 1999 from the border at Rykerts. A subject appeared suspicious and the customs officer referred him to a secondary officer. The subject momentarily parked then fled. A 911 call was made to police who began the pursuit. The subject was stopped with a spike belt 150 kilometres away. When the subject exited his crashed vehicle, he began shooting at police officers. The subject was a U.S. felon who was fleeing apprehension in the U.S.

This is the level of the problem that we have. At the Ambassador Bridge, two fully automatic rifles, a .45 calibre handgun and a martial arts weapon were found undeclared on two men from Missouri. Both men were charged, convicted and given a 30 day sentence. In Patterson, two customs officers located a large weapons cache consisting of two rifles and four handguns.

These customs officers are doing a job for the security of our country and in return they basically get lip service from the federal Liberals. What the opposition is calling for, demanding, is that the federal Liberals step up to the plate with the proper resources, that we get to the end of this, and rather than, as my friend has said, shutting off the ability to come up with a critical incidents summary report, actually getting on with the job of giving the officers the ability to get the job done.

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to again debate this particular topic. You may be aware that last week I had an opportunity as well to rise on this as a question. I see that the gentleman who had the opportunity to respond to my question is also in the House so perhaps we will be continuing our debate.

While we are in favour of going ahead with something that is already in place--it almost becomes redundant--I think it is important to take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House this fact. Although we are going ahead with the necessary legislation to put this agency into effect, in fact and yet once again the government has brought us to a point where, although we have the necessity of a border guard, a border crossing control, for the sovereignty of our country and the security of the people of Canada, the government has turned around and completely under-resourced this absolutely vital entity.

Nothing makes this more profound than if I read to the House from the “CCRA Interim Policy on the Handling of Armed and Dangerous Lookouts”:

This memorandum is intended to disseminate to the Customs inspectors, the interim CCRA policy on the handling of individuals who are the subject of armed and dangerous lookouts.

Should a Customs Officer encounter an individual who is identified as being the subject of an armed and dangerous lookout, the Customs Officer should allow the individual to proceed and immediately notify the police and provide as much detail as possible to enable apprehension.

This interim policy will remain in effect until a longer term strategy on armed and dangerous lookouts is developed in consultation with our partners.

This is really quite pitiful.

I can relay two stories to members. One of them is from my constituency, which was relayed directly to me, and is about one of the customs officers who was on shift by himself in the middle of the night. Members may recall that this was the topic of my last debate, the fact that he should not have been on shift by himself, but he was.

He was confronted by two individuals in a vehicle who were about to proceed across the border at the border crossing of Roosville. The border crossing is an hour and a quarter away from Fernie, which is the closest RCMP detachment. It was three o'clock in the morning. The officer took a look at the two individuals in the car and came to the conclusion that they were pretty dangerous people. As a consequence, he waved them on through. He then called the RCMP in Fernie, as I say, an hour and a quarter's drive away, and was told by the person there, “Well, I can't do anything about it, because I'm on shift all by myself”.

There we had two people who the customs officer, and I have no reason to question his judgment, felt were very dangerous people. As a consequence of that, he called the RCMP, following this directive, only to be told there was nothing the RCMP could do about it either. That is the state that these Liberals have allowed us to get to here in Canada.

I have another story. Two customs officers noticed a car speeding through the Pacific crossing just south of Vancouver. It was in the middle of the day. As the car sped through, they recognized one of the people in the car as somebody who should have stopped; certainly they would have loved to interdict the person.

The two of them hopped into their vehicle and chased the car. They went down all the streets and through the freeways and, using their own personal cellphones, alerted the police to the fact that these two armed and dangerous people--they assumed they were armed and dangerous--were on the loose. Due to the customs officers shadowing the car, the police found these people, who indeed were armed, indeed were dangerous and indeed did have drugs in their car.

Everybody was really happy about this, because that meant these customs officers had done their job and the police had intercepted them so Canada was safe.

Do hon. members know what the reward was for the customs officers? It was a severe reprimand for leaving their border. Where is the common sense and logic to this?

At the Pacific crossing, contrary to Roosville and Rykerts and the other crossings in my constituency, which are undermanned, there is a certain complement of personnel at the border on the Canadian side at the Pacific crossing. What did the customs officers get for using their common sense, for using their courage and for having the conviction that they would pull these people over and indeed for getting the job done? They were seriously reprimanded and I believe even lost pay over the fact that they had left their posts.

What is wrong with this picture? Although the federal Liberals are constantly talking about the fact that they take our border security very seriously, they are not providing the resources. We are not only talking about money, but about the personnel that would flow from the money, and certainly not the equipment. On top of that, the border agents are in a position where they are not even integrating with sufficient backup and support from the RCMP and other police forces.

I do not understand a government that would be doing this to us at a time in our world's history when we are faced with some very malevolent forces in the world. Those forces could choose to come into our country at a time when we are trying to build a working relationship with our friends to the south, who are after all our biggest trading partner. Why is the government constantly underfunding and under-resourcing? The border agents are not only under-resourced in manpower and equipment, but, as I read in this interim policy, they are under-resourced in terms of this policy.

What drew this to my attention was the unfortunate passing of Adam Angel. Just to refresh everyone's memories, that occurred while he was working by himself. He should not have been working alone. He was ill the entire night long, to the point that by six o'clock in the morning he was literally on death's door. I do not know if he made it to the hospital. He was by himself. Why did he not contact anyone? I do not know the answer to the question about Adam Angel, but I know that 30% of the time the ability of these officers to contact anybody is either limited or non-existent.

Most of the time the information that is passed up the line from the U.S. side of the border is not even available to them. Other times, because of under-staffing, the backup and support they are supposed to be receiving from their supervisors, casting no aspersions on their supervisors, is not there because sometimes the telephones are not on. How seriously do the Liberals actually take Canada's border security? Not very seriously.

I also have in hand something called the “Canadian Customs Officers Critical Incident Summary Report”. In this particular instance, there was a situation at Rykerts, just south of my riding, where the border guards were actually taken hostage by people. There are over 200 incidents in this critical incident summary report. It was shut down by management because it did not want a continuation of the compiling of these critical incidents.

This legislation should be going forward, but I seriously question the actual seriousness of the federal Liberals about the safety and security of Canadians.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the position of my friend is absolutely accurate. I should mention, and I speak as the B.C. caucus chair, that the B.C. caucus is fully aware of the interest in this issue by the citizens in British Columbia. This motion is in response to a groundswell of interest and of wanting a judicial inquiry.