Joe Comartin

[Taxation, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, before taking office, this government talked a great deal about tax fairness and justice for seniors. Now, after more than 100 days and a new budget, the thousands of Canadians who continue to be unfairly taxed on their U.S. social security benefits are still waiting. The longstanding unjust treatment of these pensioners living in Canada continues.

When in opposition, both the Conservative member for Essex and the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stood in the House to support Canadians Asking for Social Security Equality, or CASSE, a group started in my community over a decade ago to fight on behalf of these retirees. They both introduced private member's bills on this issue, so many held out hope that the government would remedy the unfairness.

Sadly, when the budget was tabled, with all the tax breaks for large corporations and high income earners, there was no inclusion of tax fairness for these seniors. It begs the question: where is the Conservative pledge for justice and fairness now?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, since I will be wrapping up the debate, I will approach this as if I were doing a summation after a trial in a courtroom.

I am doing that in light of what I saw develop during the debate. I will start with what concerns me. I looked at the number of points that were raised this evening and I have to say that the government stands accused, and I will convict it, of not answering these points.

The first one is the whole issue of sovereignty. It has been raised repeatedly by way of a question to a number of the ministers and a number of the members of the government about whether this is just another step to full integration of our military, and to some degree, our foreign affairs into a continental, particularly U.S. dominated process that will leave Canada seriously short of its sovereignty. That answer was never given.

There were a number of questions with regard to whether this was the best use of our resources within Norad. Would there be better ways of doing it? In that respect it raises the issue that there are clauses in the agreement about intelligence sharing. It was interesting to hear the Minister of Public Safety in a somewhat facetious and perhaps sarcastic fashion indicate that we already do share intelligence and do we not understand that. I think that was in response to one question.

I can assure the minister that I understand that having worked in this area for the better part of two years now. We do in fact share a lot of intelligence and I do not see that this particular agreement adds anything. There was no explanation of that given.

There was no explanation given as to why there is reference to missile defence. There is a long preamble and a subclause where the U.S. reserves its right to deal with missile defence. There is no explanation of why that is in there.

As a lawyer I can say that clauses are not put into an agreement unless they have some purpose. There was no explanation given by the government as to what the purpose was of those two clauses. There was no explanation and in fact very little was addressed.

We heard a lot about the history of Norad. I can say to the government that I understand the history of Norad. We did not need to spend all that time on that.

There was no explanation as to why Norad is now being used as a mechanism to fight drug crime. That seems to be a bit of an overkill. Certainly we have any number of other agreements with the United States and agencies for which we share similar responsibilities on both sides of the border that are much more appropriate to deal with drug crimes.

I have to say that I was left with the image of a ballistic missile coming in and blowing up a drug runner some place, whether it was at the border in Windsor or somewhere else in the Great Lakes or in the Rocky Mountains. There was no explanation.

It begs the question, why would we be spending money through Norad for that purpose as opposed to using that money for instance to raise the wages of our military which is badly in need? It seems to be a waste of money when one looks at it from that perspective. Again, there were no answers.

Finally, there is the issue of the maritime area and why this is in Norad. Norad was always designed to be a mechanism to deal with air defence. It has no expertise and no background in the maritime area. We cannot help but wonder if there is not a better mechanism.

If we look at those points, whether it is about missile defence, user resources, the fight against drug crime, and the issue of how best to protect our maritime borders, have we had the answers here this evening? In each one of those cases I can say with absolute assurance we have not. It begs the question as to whether this debate has produced the necessary information for the House to deal with whether we approve ratification. It certainly has not elucidated these issues for the sake of the Canadian public.

From that perspective, this debate should have been a much longer one. If the government is really serious about opening this up and ratifying these agreements on an ongoing basis, we need a better process than what we had here this evening.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question about the previous government.

I know the member for Yukon has been quite active on the defence committee. Does this agreement that is before the House tonight for debate have any changes in it from the previous administration or is this the same agreement that the previous administration had negotiated with the United States?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the overture to continue the dialogue. I do have to say to him that we are concerned that the issue around ministerial discretion has not been more clearly addressed. The previous Liberal government had it in very similar terminology; it may have been exactly the same terminology. The member for Windsor West communicated our concerns quite strongly. I know that the mayor of the city of Windsor has communicated his concerns to the government. I am a bit disturbed that we have not seen any alteration.

What we are really looking for is that there be a confirmation, a very clear guideline, about how that discretion would be exercised if there is to be any deviation from the regulations, and we would want to see clear regulations as to the process by which the minister would be exercising his or her discretion. From the legislation we have now and, quite frankly, what we had from the prior government and from the department, there has been a lack of any type of positive response to those kinds of concerns. I would ask them to do this. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that there has been enough time and the government could be looking at this.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her question.

The basic answer is yes. We would be very supportive of having significant input both from the provinces and from the territories, which at some point will become an issue, but also from the municipal level of government. In our community, quite frankly, the input from the City of Windsor and the County of Essex levels of government would be at least as significant as it would be from the Province of Ontario, because of the impact that the border crossings have on our city and county and also because of the level of knowledge and expertise that resides in that level of government.

The other problem there is with some provinces is that they do not have the infrastructure in place to help us and to allow the federal government to discuss and sign agreements with them. They are not prepared at this point. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario can do so, as can certain other provinces.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to give a speech since the 39th Parliament started, although I have been up on my feet on a few other occasions. I want to acknowledge and thank the constituents of Windsor--Tecumseh for their support. It is extremely humbling. I pledge to them, as I have each time, to do my very best to represent them here in Ottawa.

The bill is one that is way overdue. It is interesting to hear the Liberal side taking credit for this, but the reality is that we did not get the bill from them. We did not get the provisions of the bill that have been badly needed in my community, in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex, for a very long period of time. This became extremely accentuated after 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, we sat for the first 24 to 36 hours with literally kilometres of delays at our borders. Part of this was that we did not have a legislative infrastructure. The federal government could have moved much more effectively had it had that legislative infrastructure to control the problems that we were confronted with on that occasion.

That has now been repeated over the last four to four and a half years, repeatedly, and it is a problem that our city and our province of Ontario are suffering from, but so is the federal government in terms of tax revenue, efficient administration of our border crossings and our relationship at the international level with the United States.

The provisions in the bill are fairly general. It will be attempting to provide a legislative framework and then follow that with what I hope and expect, for my riding and my constituents, will be a very detailed regulatory body of rules that will in effect allow for an efficient, proper administration at our border crossings.

We in our city and county have the distinction of having more trade and more passengers, both vehicular and rail, than any other place in the country. We are the key crossing, as the House heard earlier from the member for Windsor West. Almost 40% of all the trade between Canada and the United States occurs in one of those four crossings in the Windsor area, through rail, ferry, the tunnel for passenger cars and some trucks, and the bridge.

As most members of the House know, at least the members who were here in the last Parliament, we have been struggling for a good number of years to reach a final consensus on a new crossing, on where it should be located, how it will be funded and how it will be owned and managed. This bill would have helped significantly had it been law, with the regulations along with it, to expedite that process.

It is actually interesting to watch on the U.S. side how on several occasions their authorities, both at the state level and the federal level, were able to intervene and speed up the process. We did not have the ability to do that. At the federal level well over 10 years ago, if not closer to 20, the U.S. changed its legislative framework to make it possible to effectively and efficiently deal with border crossing issues. This legislation would accomplish that assuming the regulatory framework is put in place.

It will deal, as the encompassing legislation allows for, with the regulation with regard to the management and operation of crossings and the roads and streets running up to those crossings, which is a fairly important feature in the bill because it is not a provision within our existing law at all. What is also very important is that it will, for the first time, significantly control the ownership and change in ownership of border crossings.

We have a major problem in our area in that the Ambassador Bridge, which is by far the single busiest crossing in this country, is owned by an American business person who runs it obviously in his interest and not in the interest of the communities on either side of the border. That is a major problem. The ownership issue is going to be very crucial as we reach the final decisions on how this new crossing is owned and managed.

I have had a fair amount of involvement on the whole issue of public security, which is one of my critic responsibilities for my party, and I just want to point out a number of incidents we have had happen that, again, a proper regulatory function would assist us with.

We have a major air quality problem, particularly at the Ambassador Bridge but also at the tunnel, because of the number of vehicles that are crossing in a confined space, oftentimes with significant delays. We know that the health of the people who work at those structures is being imperilled, as is the health of the people who live in the immediate areas.

There is a major problem at our border crossings with illegal trafficking in weapons, drugs and humans. I know, from having had extensive discussions with police forces on both sides of the border, that we need to significantly augment our coordination and cooperation. They attempt to do it and I want to give them credit for that, but an overall streamlined framework on the Canadian side would significantly improve our ability to deal with those problems.

Quite frankly, we have problems with protocols. We have had two really quite significant incidents of police forces on the U.S. side crossing over without permission. On one occasion it was a chase through the tunnel that occurred in the downtown core of both Detroit and Windsor. They were coming across with guns in hand and apprehending alleged drug dealers on the Canadian side. It was done in the presence of a large number of regular passengers moving through that tunnel, and staff were present with no protection. This is a clear breach of the protocol. We think we have now cleared up the problem, but we cannot help but think that if we had had the proper regulatory framework it would not have happened in the first place.

There was another incident with a police officer who realized at the last minute that he was carrying his gun. He attempted to take it out as he was coming across the bridge and, I suppose, hide it somewhere in the vehicle, and he shot himself in the foot. That occurred as he was in the line approaching customs. His gun very easily could have discharged and injured other people. Again, the ability to regulate and to some degree publicize in the United States the need for them to keep their guns on that side of the border could be, I believe, much more efficiently handled with the type of regulatory framework that I envision coming out of this legislation.

The House has already heard of the problem that we are having with hazardous materials. We know, and I say this with some degree of confidence, that hazardous materials are being taken across the bridge. That is illegal. Hazardous materials are supposed to cross on the barge ferry. It is not happening and we do not have the ability to enforce this. Again, it is because of the lack of coordination and the streamlining that is required, which should come out of this legislation.

All of this is a major concern for us in the Windsor-Essex County area.

The NDP is in support of this legislation. We do have some concerns, some of which will be fine-tuning of the legislation. The one major concern we do have is the ministerial discretion that is encompassed in part of the legislation. I can advise the government that our members at committee will be pressing hard to tighten up how that discretion can be exercised, so that the concerns of the local community will continue to be protected. We are hearing quite clearly from the local community members that it is a concern on their part.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment on the statistics that the Minister of Justice threw out so casually on the comparison of crime rates. We looked at them last year and he knows there are some fundamental flaws with them. I caution the minister in spouting them across the country because there are serious doubts about their accuracy.

The minister made some comments about the NDP during the campaign and supporting some of our positions. The reality is that we had done that and I had personally done it in the justice committee along with the justice minister in the spring and fall of last year.

For the first time in the throne speech I saw that the Prime Minister was speaking out in favour of social programs and of funding social programs, which was a key part of the NDP platform around controlling crime in this country. Would the minister agree with me that that was a late conversion on the part of his government to support the NDP position on how best to deal with crime in Canada?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I have a quick comment for the member for Vegreville—Wainwright about whether it would be more credible for his government to stop claiming that it has the $755 million out under special funding when in fact it is only $400 million. We really would like to see the other $350 million in the hands of the producers around the country.

My question is related to the statement yesterday by the minister of agriculture for Alberta. The federal government is looking to either get rid of CAIS or dramatically change it. The minister of agriculture for Alberta indicated a lack of cooperation or willingness to tinker with CAIS, as I understood his statement.

Could the member make any comment about any contact he has had with that minister and what he fully expects the province to do in terms of cooperating in getting rid of CAIS?

[Petitions, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with about 1,500 names on it from the Windsor Essex County area opposing the western hemisphere travel initiative and calling upon Parliament to insist that the United States stop the implementation of that initiative.

[Criminal Code, November 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have turned it off for the member.

We have built up a number of samples in our database that should not have been taken or were mistakenly taken by our police forces across the country, which I suppose is inevitable when introducing new technology. Some of the crimes with which the accused persons were charged did not fall within the scope of the legislation and some crimes were of a more minor nature and the samples should not have been taken. However we have the samples and there is no provision within the legislation, either in 2000 or 2005, to dispose of them.

I have to add that there is a serious problem with our technology as to whether we are actually capable of disposing of those samples without damaging other samples that we are entitled to have within the data bank. It becomes a little complex but it is a problem and I will use it as one of the examples. It is one that we should be addressing when we eventually get around to reviewing the 2000 legislation.

However, to confirm for my friend from Mississauga South, this is very much a technical bill to correct a few errors that were made in the last legislation in the spring. I do not see any charter issues in any of the amendments that are being proposed in Bill C-72.