Joe Volpe

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted that the hon. member opposite wants to be singular in North America in associating himself with the previous American administration.

This debate was not generated by my colleague from Ajax—Pickering because we wanted to engage in invective. We wanted to put this entire relationship on an important debating principle associated with facts and the consequences of the way those facts were dealt with for the public. Politics really should be about that.

I think many would probably agree with me that when my colleague suggests the previous government might not have done what was required, he probably ignores the fact we went from 14 to 21 consular offices and embassies. We put in place those issues to address the security concerns of the United States.

In fact, we made a commitment to spend the kind of moneys, which the Conservatives are now spending, to secure the northern border so we could move away from these misguided, suspicious initiatives by some members of the American administration.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have the pleasure of sharing my time with the member for Don Valley West.

A moment or two ago we listened to some interventions by government members who talked about the relative importance of the relationship that Canada has with its southern neighbour, the United States. No one wants to contest that. What my colleague from Ajax—Pickering is saying in his motion to all Canadians, and I would ask government members to read it carefully, is that it is not important enough for us to look in the mirror and say are we not a great partner in this beautiful relationship, but rather what are we doing to let the other member of that partnership understand the importance of that relationship?

At a time when we are both interdependent, and I noted that the member for Sarnia—Lambton also pointed to the fact that one out of every four jobs, 25%, in the United States are dependent on the relationship that Canada and the United States have developed over the years. They must be aware of the commercial impact of this partnership. What are the Conservatives doing to let the other side understand the importance of a relationship to them and hence from that, what are the political decisions that the Americans are making to enhance that partnership?

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering essentially was calling on all Canadians to think in terms of the four themes that need to be addressed. If we are going to be talking about enhancing and nurturing this relationship, no one wants to contest that it is important. Yes, we trade more with the United States and yes, the United States trades more with us than we do with every other nation in the world. Yes, we are a much more important partner to the United States from a commercial point of view than all 27 EU member states, but are the Americans aware of the significance of that? And what are they doing to enhance and nurture that relationship? Because no relationship is worth having unless it is worth nurturing. People have to work at being friends, at being partners, at being business associates, otherwise that partnership, that friendship, that political association collapses. It does not matter what we think of ourselves, unless we engage the other side, it does not work.

I was glad that the parliamentary secretary who just spoke gave us an opportunity to talk about the relationship that has been allowed to go more and more fallow. When we were in government not that long ago, 88% of our international trade went immediately south of the border. That does not make us a trading nation but it does indicate that we are an integral part of the dynamics of this continental economy. We were working toward enhancing the percentage that would go further abroad. Now today, the partnership has a much smaller percentage of our overall trade. Unfortunately, the total quantity of that trade has also diminished.

I said I wanted to talk on all four issues. One of them is the commercial one that seems to be going further and further into the red. We need to take a look at the dynamic that is most important for us and build a relationship with the political elements in the United States as well as the entrepreneurial elements that indicate that they can have the relationship that we need here in North America. We need it in our base

The government acknowledges the fact that there are about 300,000 people who cross the border every day. They are not Canadians; they are Americans as well. So there are about 150,000 people who actually make a trip across the border on a daily basis. That shows the interconnectedness of our commercial affairs. That does not include all of those people who are driving or having access through other means of transportation, be it commercial or personal.

With more of our industries making the investment decision to move south because of the perception that the Americans are no longer as comfortable about the relationship or that partnership, then we are losing investment decisions to go down south. We need just take a look at the problems associated with the auto industry, and some of my colleagues opposite understand that. They might say this is cyclical, but all the associated supply chain industries, whether they are making similar decisions, are making generational decisions. They are not going to happen again in our country for quite some time.

What is the government doing? Is it taking any proactive steps to ensure a reverse of this trend? Today's motion talks to that. It does not talk about being important. Today's motion talks about how to maintain and grow those imports. How do we make the Americans understand where we are?

Members have talked about the fact that the Olympics will be held in Vancouver in 2010. The Americans will want to come here. They have a habit of moving around without the problems associated with the documentation that the rest of the world takes for granted. Fifty-three per cent of Canadians are accustomed to carrying a passport, but not the Americans. The percentage is a lot less. The member opposite contests that number, but that is okay because it is still vastly superior to the American number.

Here is the importance of that, and my colleague from Essex would know this more than others. It means that the Americans will be tougher on their own citizens as they try to re-enter the United States without the appropriate documentation.

It is okay for Canadians to accept Americans coming across the border. We are probably a little less punctilious about recognizing that somebody may be coming from Detroit to work in Windsor. When that individual goes back to Detroit, he or she will face an examination for their passport credentials. We need to address that.

One of the ways to do it is to build a political relationship with political leaders on the other side. We need to ask where this madness will lead our commercial partnership. Where is the madness for detail that does not appear to be as necessary as fearmongers would suggest? Where is the madness going to lead our relationship?

I said earlier that the previous government took steps with CANPASS and NEXUS and the biometrics on improving and enhancing CBSA supervision at the border. The Liberal government increased border expenditures so those borders would not only be smart borders, but they would be effective borders, and most important, from a commercial point of view, they would be efficient borders. They would move traffic back and forth very quickly. That means an investment has to be made not only in people but in technology. We did that, and I am glad that the government is following on that.

However, In my view, the government has stopped that trend.

As recently as 2002, the Liberal government, a government of which I was a happy participant, had 14 trade and consular offices in the United States. We decided we needed to expand that number well beyond 14. Members must keep in mind that the Mexicans have 45 such offices in the United States and they are not nearly as close in the partnership as we are. We had 14 and we upped that number to 21. What has the current government done since? Zero. In other words, the government has abandoned that political relationship. It abandoned a political relationship on a macro basis, government to government, but it did it as well on a personal basis.

Government members have pointed to the relationship with Louise Slaughter, a member of Congress from upstate New York. I have met her as have other members of Parliament. She is the one spokesperson who says that the relationship the U.S. has with Canada is important. She is the only one who says our relationship is better than the ones the European states have with each other, where they value freedom of mobility of people and freedom of mobility of goods. It is on the basis of that free movement of people and goods that the European Union is growing not only commercially, but also culturally.

In Canada we are not building that relationship with the Louise Slaughters of the United States Congress. In fact, forget about Janet Napolitano. What is worse, and this is a real shame, John McCain, a close friend of the Conservatives and the republicans on that side of the House, has now decried the U.S. relationship with Canada. This tells us the government is doing zip.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we do not contest that the CBSA is a good organization or that it has a series of initiatives. I want to compliment the parliamentary secretary for recognizing the NEXUS program, the CANPASS program, the biometrics, and the smart border. These are all Liberal initiatives when I had the good fortune to be in cabinet. I am glad that he thought that they were good enough that the government has not improved on them.

The member from this side, for Ajax—Pickering, in his motion is looking for what else is the government doing? How is it accomplishing a package that tells everyone that Canadians are not only good friends, as the member says, they are not only great businessmen, as the member says, but they are also reliable individuals who share a common border?

What is it that the government is doing? How is it accomplishing that? That is what the motion says. The government has not addressed this issue and so continually to repeat that the initiatives that the last Liberal government put in place are great and fabulous things, all that he can be doing is asking for us to applaud ourselves.

We are a little more humble than that. We want to make greater progress. How is the parliamentary secretary going to demonstrate that the Government of Canada is now being proactive? It certainly cannot do that, from what he said.

[Petitions, April 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition signed by many Canadians, some from the great riding of Eglinton—Lawrence.

The petitioners are urging NATO to review its nuclear policy for the following reasons: first, the continued existence of some 25,000 nuclear weapons risks their accidental or intentional use, posing a constant threat to all life and our climate; second, Canada has already signed and ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in which article 6 commits each of the parties to the treaty to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons; third, the International Court of Justice ruled as long ago as July 18, 1996 that the aforementioned treaty commits a legal obligation under international law and for all practical purposes the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal; and finally, NATO's stated position that nuclear weapons are essential runs counter to that treaty's goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.

As a result, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to press publicly for an urgent review of NATO's nuclear weapons policy to ensure that all NATO states fulfill their international obligations and to negotiate and conclude an agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and to eliminate reliance on nuclear weapons with NATO's strategic concept. The petitioners thank the House for its attention.

[National Volunteer Week, April 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today kicks off National Volunteer Week in Canada. This week gives us occasion to both recognize the work done by volunteers and to get involved in charitable work ourselves.

It is estimated that in Canada, some 12 million volunteers give their time to 161,000 charitable organizations, which generate $112 billion a year for our economy.

Volunteers are selfless in their actions, noble in their intentions, and they enrich the lives of people who they will never meet.

I would like to thank everyone at Volunteer Canada, which helps coordinate volunteers across the country.

Most importantly, I want to thank all of Canada's volunteers, like the individual men and women affected by the flood in Manitoba who have not thought twice about lending a helping hand to a neighbour in need. Thanks to all of them.

[Airport Security, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know how those breaches will be resolved. They are not interested in what the Auditor General says about departmental turf wars, lack of criminal intelligence distribution, legal constraints on information sharing, or differences between the RCMP and Transport Canada, or any other excuses.

What Canadians want to know is when are the Ministers of Transport and Public Safety going to work together to fix these outstanding and longstanding problems. Are their egos more important than the safety of Canadians and the security of the country?

[Airport Security, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, imagine, Transport Canada is allowing individuals with criminal links access to restricted areas at airports. One person is even under investigation for murder.

The minister, feigning outrage, says he will come up with a security solution within 10 days, but the minister knew about the Auditor General's report before yesterday and his government has known about the security issues since 2006.

What is the minister going to accomplish in 10 days that his government was unwilling or unable to accomplish in three years? What is his plan?

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention speaks, in large measure, to the importance of allowing members of Parliament to speak their mind during any debate. He has raised a series of issues that might have some relevance to the marine liability issue.

Would he spend a few moments reflecting on one issue he has raised, which is the significance of the environmental impact of the release of greenhouse gases when there is an environmental destruction of our forestry? The reason I would like him to do that is the bill will be examined in committee in the context of how to apply the liability issues to freighters, to cargo carriers of product that could potentially have a damaging effect on the environment.

Since he talked about the value to a pristine environment, if we transfer that value onto an insurance model, then we could impose upon those individuals or corporations that engage in activity detrimental to the environment an appropriate tariff for liability purposes.

Would he share his views and his thoughts in that vein for those of us who serve on the committee and would like to bring some of those issues to a more specific discussion of the bill when it does come to committee?

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my compliments to my colleague from Prince Edward Island on raising matters relative to the Marine Liabilities Act. He raised two issues that I would like him to address in greater detail.

One of them is of course the economic impact on the shipping industry, not only as a carrier of cargo and people but in fact as an economic stimulus for those maritime provinces, in particular not only his own but Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

In addition to that, he did raise the economic viability of these carriers and the issue of ensuring both cargo and the protocols associated with being able to protect the environment against the failure of the carriers themselves to deliver their cargo safely and efficiently to a port without damaging the environment.

Because of his background as a lawyer, who has dealt a great deal both with insurance and with the commerce of transporting product that can have a deleterious effect to the environment, I wonder whether he has thought through the possibility of the insurance as a component of the cost of doing business and weighing that against the needs of society for an environment and an ecosystem that needs to be protected.

I noted he made reference to both in his speech, but I wonder if he would elaborate on that for us, because he did indicate that he wanted the committee to focus much more attention on it and to fine-tune this bill.

Being a member of that committee, I wonder if he would share with this House, and with me in particular, the ideas that he would like us to proceed with and to follow, so that the legislation does fit with the intent of what I think is a very thoughtful presentation on his part.

[Marine Liability Act, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a very thoughtful intervention and I thank him for it. In second reading we all want to take a look at those issues to be raised in committee, with the purpose of enhancing the bill.

He has made a variety of suggestions about what needs to happen and what needs not to happen, but I noted that in his presentation he was focused on something we mentioned earlier through the intervention of my colleague from Mississauga South. If we are to make the bill effective, rather than focus simply on the penalties for transgressions, accidents and incidents, which are an improvement, we would take a look at something proactive. One of the issues he raised was the lack of a protocol for training, checks and balances for people who operate carriers, especially in the petroleum industry and other industries that have a tendency to find themselves in environmental disasters of one type or another.

Has he in mind a particular set of protocols or a particular protocol that he would like the committee to consider, as it deliberates on this bill, with a purpose to enhance the environmental protection as opposed to the liabilities for environmental degradation? Could he speak to that?